UNION OF INDIA Vs. Q S SHIPCHANDLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the Union of India through its Chief Commercial Superintendent, Central Railways, having their Office at Bombay V. T. , Bombay, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 25th September, 1990 passed by the Consumers Disputes Redressel Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission for the sake of brevity), Maharashtra State, New Bombay in Complaint No. 10/1990. By the impugned judgment and order, the said Commission ordered the Central Railway to pay Rs. 2,372/- to the complainant as cost of the complaint, within thirty days and also directed the Central Railway to recover from passengers the actual fair fixed by the Central Government under section 30 (1) of the Railways Act and published for A/c Chair Car bogies attached to Indrayani Express and Deccan Express plying between Bombay-Pune till the fare is revised by the Central Government.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Samant for petitioners. Respondent No. 1, who was the original complainant, is not present. As such, he had not claimed any compensation for himself on account of deficiency in service. The complaint was filed in the nature of public interest. His complaint in nutshell was as follows :---

(3.) THIS complaint came to be filed in the name of public interest before the Commission, who after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned order. Having gone through the said Judgment, and having heard Mr. Samant for petitioner, I find substance in the contention of Mr. Samant that a complaint of this type ought to have been filed before Railway Rates Tribunal, as there is a bar of jurisdiction as per the provisions of section 43 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Mr. Samant for petitioners has further submitted that the impugned judgment is dated 25th September, 1990 and after that, the fares were revised thrice and in view of this, the judgment has become ineffective. He is also relying upon the order dated 5th July, 2000 passed by this Court (Coram : B. P. Singh, C. J. and N. J. Pandya, J.) in (Writ Petition No. 954 of 2000), which was also filed in the nature of public interest, incorporating a similar grievance and which was disposed of by observing that this type of grievances cannot be entertained in this court, and petitioners if so advised, may make the representation before appropriate authority for consideration of their demand. With these observations, the said writ petition was disposed of.