AMERKAR CONSTRUCTION AND SONS Vs. ANIL REDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.A. Kholkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission Forum whereby the contention raised by the petitioners to the effect that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondents should be subject to an easementary right in favour of the petitioners and other residents located towards the western side of the suit plot came to be rejected.

(2.) At the outset, Mr. P.A. Kholkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised the contention that the above Writ Petition is not maintainable as according to him an alternate remedy was available to the petitioners in filing a revision before the National Consumer Forum. The learned counsel has relied upon Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which according to the respondents provides that the petition lies to the National Consumer Forum. The learned counsel as such submits that the above petition deserves to be rejected.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the revision in terms of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, is only with regard to the orders passed by the State Consumer Forum in an adjudication in a consumer dispute. The learned counsel further points out that the order impugned in the present petition is an order passed in exercise of the Appellate jurisdiction and as such, the revision in terms of Section 21(b) of the said Consumer Protection Act, is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.B. Upadhyay V/s State Commission for Consumer Disputes, Mumbai, 2010 AIR(Bom) 139.