REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DILWORTH V. COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS [REFERRED TO]
BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,MADRAS AND ANOTHER V. A. SIRAJ BASHA [REFERRED TO]
WISCONSIN V. YODER [REFERRED TO]
W. AND J.B. EASTWOOD LIMITED V. HERROD (VALUATION OFFICER) [REFERRED TO]
HEMENS (VALUATION OFFICER) V. WHITSBURY FARM AND STUD LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS V. M.MURUGESAN [REFERRED TO]
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY V. VINAY PRAKASH VERMA [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE COMMISSION IN DIRECTOR V. HIMACHAL INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
DELHI STATE COMMISSION IN APPEJAY SCHOOL AND ANOTHER V. M.K. SANGAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BIREN KUMAR JAGDEV V. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
ASGARALI NAZARALI SINGAPOREWALLA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI J D TYTLER VIRENDER SAXENA VS. RAM NATH [REFERRED TO]
G I T ANDHRA PRADESH VS. TAJ MAHAL HOTEL SECUNDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. GHULAM DASTAGIR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CALCUTTA VS. NATIONAL TAJ TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
JOLLY GEORGE VARGHESE VS. BANK OF COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENT CO LIMITED STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MENT COMPANY LIMITED:PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENT COMPANY LIMITED:RESERVE BANK OF INDIA:PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVEST MENF COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
A SUNDARAMBAL VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. HIGH LAND COFFEE WORKS OF P F X SALDANHA AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. HIGH LAND COFFEE WORKS OF P F X SALDANHA AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPUR VS. DATTATRAYA DAHANKAR ADVOCATE [REFERRED TO]
MOHINI JAIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
NELSON MOTIS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE A REGISTERED SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNNI KRISHNAN J P VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. M K GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
TULASI ENTERPRISES VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER COMMISSION HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
ENGINEERING INSTITUTION VS. PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMERS REDRESSALFORUM BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
N TANEJA ALIAS NIRMALA TANEJA VS. CALCUTTA DISTRICT FORUM [REFERRED TO]
V BALACHANDRAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PHILIP JEYASINGH VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHIDAMBARANAR REGION TUTICORIN [REFERRED TO]
C S SUBRAMANIAN VS. KUMARASAMY [REFERRED TO]
A V GEORGEKUTTY VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDN VS. CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM [REFERRED TO]
CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCIETY,JAIPUR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ OF CHANDIGRAH V. HARYANA SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD [REFERRED TO]
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY,ROHTAK V. SHAKUNTALA CHAUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
MANISHA SAMAL VS. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
A.P.J. SCHOOL V. K.L. GALHOTRA [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY VS. MUMBAI GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BROADLY stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called'the act') and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W. P. No. 6447 of 1993 a prayer is made for declaration that Secs. l0 (l) (b) and (c), 13 (3), (4) and (5), 14 (l) (c), 16 (l) (b), 20 (1) (b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other writ petitions the prayer is for either issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaints or for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the consumer Forum on specified complaints.

(2.) THE petitions can be classified into three Groups: A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Institutions: B. Writ Petitions filed by Universities, and C. Writ petitions filed by the Director of Government Examinations. Writ Petitions falling in Group'a': w. P. Nos. 6446, 6447, 7577, 9585, 15743, 19409, 19410, 19411, 19412, 19461, 19462, 20608, 20609, 20894, 20895 and 21083 of 1993. Writ Petitions falling in Group'b' w. P. Nos. 1700 of 1992 and W. P. No. 5262 of 1993. Writ Petitions falling in Group ';c: W. P. Nos. 9425 and 20165 of 1993. A. Writ petitions filed by Educational Institutions:

(3.) IN W. P. Nos. 6446, 7577, 9585, 20608, 20609, 20894, 20895 and 21083 of 1993, the prayer is for issue of writ of prohibition. IN w. P. Nos. 19409, 19410,19412, 19461 and 19462 of 1993, the prayer is for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records in C. Nos. 71,73, 69,70 and 72 of 1993 and quash the orders passed on 23. 8. 1993 by the Forum. Similarly W. P. No. 19411 of 1993 is for issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in C. No. 66 of 1993 and quash the order passed on 13. 9. 1993.

Click here to view full judgment.

REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address