UNION OF INDIA Vs. NATIONAL FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the interim order dated 6.8.1991 passed by Sarojini Kumari describing herself as President of the District Forum, Jodhpur, in Complaint Case No.64/91. The complainant obtained licence under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 issued under Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955" ). The authorised premises were subsequently changed to Bohra Bhawan on request. The proprietor of the complainant/ non-petitioner is Premraj. The factory was inspected on 25.7.91. Certain defects and violation of conditions of licence were noticed. It was also informed that on the packet of peas certain words were written which were against the directions given to Shri Premraj on 23.2.1990 vide letter No. F.14/na/fp/nr/90. The defects were mentioned in the inspection note dated 29.7.91. The concerned authorities came to the conclusion that there was something fishy about the concern. Thereafter it was decided that the record of production, purchases, disposal and cold storage should be inspected. The Dy. Director, Fruit and Vegetable Products Shri Ashok Paliwal and Shri T. P. S. Butola, Sr. Inspecting Officer inspected the site and prepared the inspection memo. Certain observations were made by them. On the basis of the general observations the production was suspended with immediate effect and the sale was prohibited. The order was passed under the provisions of clause 13 of the Fruit Products Order, 1955 issued under the Act of 1955. The complainant/ non-petitioner approached the member of the District Forum Sarojini Kumari who passed the interim order (Annexure-4) dated 6.8.91 describing herself as President of the District Forum. The interim order is to this effect: **** this order is signed by Sarojini Kumari as President of the District Forum. Aggrieved, the Opposite Parties-petitioners have filed this revision as aforesaid.

(2.) Notices were ordered to be issued and the record was called. Notices were given dasti. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted the served notice of the complainant for the hearing of today's date. He has also submitted an application stating that order under revision dated 6.8.1991 has been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction and as such the record of the case is not necessary for final disposal of the, revision petition and therefore, he has prayed that the case may be disposed of. Heard Mr. Kamal Kayan Shrimal, Advocate for the petitioners.

(3.) The order under revision dated 6.8.1991 has been passed by Sarojini Kumari describing herself as the President of the District Forum, Jodhpur. It cannot be sustained in law under the amended provisions of Sec.14 (2) of the Act, for, the President of the District Forum was not a party in passing that order. Sec.14 (2) of the Act requires that the case should be heard and disposed of atleast by two members of the District Forum one of them being the President of the District Forum. This is the mandatory requirement of law. As it has not been followed while passing the order sought to be revised, we are left with no alternative but to set it aside. Sarojini Kumari has described herself as the President of the District Forum, whereas she is not. We do not approve that Sarojini Kumari, Member of the District Forum to have described herself as the President of the District Forum when in fact she is not. She could not be appointed as the President of the District Forum under the Act.