G RAJAMANI Vs. PHIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally there were six respondents. However, the records show that respondents 2 to 6 had been given up. Therefore the revision survives only against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had been served and he is neither appearing in person nor engaged any counsel.

(2.) Normally in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I would not have interfered with the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in R.P.No.21 of 2001, as there is a further remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act before the National Commission. But at the same time, it must be noticed that mere availability of an alternative remedy does not by itself disable this court from exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if a glaring injustice is brought to its notice. This court is fully aware that it has no unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or Tribunal. It is a settled position in law that exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and in cases where it is imminent that grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. A patent or flagrant error in procedure or an order resulting in manifest injustice are recognised grounds to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. See AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1222 (TRIMBAK GANGADHAR TELANG v. RAMACHANDRA GANESH BHIDE). Having the well settled principles in law, I applied my mind to the illegality brought out in the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin, which had been affirmed by the State Commission. The respondent filed C.O.P.No.149 of 1996 before the Original Authority alleging deficiency in service against six people. On 24.1.1997, an award was passed directing the opposite parties in that proceedings to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/= with interest at 12% from a specified date till the date of payment. The sixth opposite party filed an appeal in A.P.No.221 of 1997 before the State Commission. That appeal was allowed as far as the appellant in that appeal alone is concerned and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration in so far as that party alone is concerned. After remand, the Original Authority passed an award on 16.12.1999 apportioning the liability of the sixth opposite party. I appears that the said award had become final. To execute that award against all the six apposite parties, the complainant filed E.P.No.7 of 2000. That petition was filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The relief prayed for in that petition is as follows:- "Therefore it is prayed that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay Rs.74,750/= and further issue warrant and punish the respondents by detaining them in prison for failure to comply with the order of the forum and thus render justice." That Execution Petition was ordered on 25.1.2001. It shows that respondents 2,3 and 4 therein (the fourth respondent is the revision petitioner) were served in the proceedings and they remained ex parte. After going into the various materials available on record, the execution petition was dismissed as against the sixth opposite party therein namely, the appellant in A.P.No.221 of 1997. The Execution Petition against the second opposite party was also dismissed. Finding that opposite parties 3,4 and 5 were wilful in their conduct in not complying with the award passed, the Original Authority passed the following order. "In the result, opposite parties 3,4 and 5 are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months."

(3.) The petitioner is one of the convicted persons. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the revision in-limini by passing the following order:-