COMMISSIONERTAMBARAM MUNICIPALITY TAMBARAM KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT Vs. D PANDURANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records in relation to the order dated 16.04.2012 passed in C.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu and quash the same and consequently dismiss the complaint filed by the first respondent.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the complaint filed by the first respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu itself is without jurisdiction and therefore, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint filed by the first respondent at all. Further, the claim made in the complaint would not have been entertained by the District Forum. Thus, the writ petitioner claims that the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that simultaneous proceedings are permissible and therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to approach both the State Consumer Forum as well as the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment in the case of Indian Bank, represented by its Assistant General Manager, Central Office, Chennai Vs. The President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mylapore, Chennai and another, 2003 2 MadLJ 17. The relief sought for in the case cited supra is that for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition, forbearing the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai 4, the first respondent from deciding or proceeding further in the complaint filed by the second respondent in O.P.No.309 of 2001.