MANONMANI MUTHUSWAMY Vs. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Manonmani Muthuswamy , appellant herein, challenges in this appeal the correctness of the order dated 17-11-199 5 passed by Shivaraj Patil ,j. , in Writ Petition No. 15846 of 1995. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to e. P. No. 72 of 1995 in O. P. No. 121/92 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and quash the notice dated 1. 11. 95 issued by it (the first respondent) as invalid, even at the stage of admission.

(2.) BRIEF facts which led to the filing of the Writ petition may have to be stated. Appellant was the first opposite party in o. P. No. 121 of 1992 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The first opposite party before the Commission was standing Housing construction and Finance Company, represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Manonman i. The State Commission was dealing with a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection act, instituted by respondents 2 and 3 before us. The first opposite party before the Commission, a flat promoter, had advertised for construction of a complex in Plot No. 4919, II Avenue, anna Nagar ,Madras. Respondents 2 and 3 were in need of a flat and approached the appellant herein. A deed of sale was executed by the appellant, transferring an undivided share of 467 sq. ft. , out of the total of 5600 sq. feet , in favour of the third respondent for Rs. 48,700/ -. Another undivided extent of 223 sq. feet was sold in favour of the second respondent for a sum of Rs. 24 ,300 / -. Agreements were duly entered into for construction of flats in the aforestated plot. The flats were agreed to be completed within eight months, that is, on or before 30-6-1988. The entire consideration of Rs. 2 ,00,000 /- was also paid by cheque.

(3.) THE appellant appearing in person submitted before us that whenever injustice stood committed, be it by a Tribunal, Commission or court, she would be entitled to challenge before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the invalidity of those orders. She also submitted, that orders passed by Criminal Courts or Civil Courts, can also be challenged before us under Article 226 of the Constitution, overlooking any other provision, for rendering of justice in any proceeding, must be taken to be paramount. She argued that in view of the pendency of W. P. No. 21133 of 1993 before this Court, challenging the order passed by the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in o. P. No. 121 of 1992, the said Commission has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in execution. She urged that in view of Section 24 of Consumer protection Act, coupled with the pendency of the aforestated writ petition, there was no finality, of the order passed by the State Commission on 24-11-1992.