PARMJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing this writ petition, before proceeding to dictate the order on 26-5-2000, the matter was adjourned to enable the parties to settle the matter. It is reported by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. Balakrishna Shastry that the matter is not settled. Therefore, this Court proceeds to pass the order on merits of this petition.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the proviso contained in Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to "Act") as unconstitutional and further to issue a declaratory relief in his favour to declare that the powers contained in Sec. 27 of the Act is arbitrary and unreasonable, urging various facts and legal contentions.

(3.) Certain relevant facts which are necessary for considering the rival contentions urged by the parties are stated as hereunder. 3a. On the complaint submitted by the 4th respondent before the second respondent under the provisions of the Act, 1986 against M/s. Manjog Corporation (hereinafter referred to "Corporation" in short) an enquiry was conducted by it and an order was passed in favour of the 4th respondent directing the said "Corporation" in Case No. CDC 80 of 1995 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,55,000.00 to the 4th respondent including costs of Rs. 500.00 which will carry , further interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of realisation towards the amount awarded by the 2nd respondent-Consumer Forum. That said order was challenged by the "Corporation" before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") by filing an Appeal in F.A. No. 813 of 1995. That appeal was also dismissed by the said "Commission" affirming the order passed by the second respondent vide its order dated 22-1-1996. As on the date of filing the writ petition dated 26-8-1995, the order which was passed by the second respondent forum on the complaint submitted by the 4th respondent against which an appeal was pending before the "Commission". These facts are not stated in the writ petition by the petitioner and that either the 2nd respondent or the "Commission" are not inferior Tribunals of this Court for the purpose of exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking for striking down the proviso to Sec. 27 urging various legal grounds for the reason that this Court had entertained a number of such writ petitions and granted stay orders. This petitioner had no cause of action much less against the 4th respondent for filing this petition and seeking the relief, as no order was passed against this petitioner personally holding him that he is liable to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum.