MAHABUBNAGAR CITIZENS COUNCIL REGD SOCIETY Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MAHABUBNAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this appeal is the correctness of the circular issued by the respondent on 7-11-1995 following the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal that a complaint can be filed by the consumer activists organisation on behalf of its members alone, but for none else. Since that is the only question raised and the respondent has appeared through the counsel to justify the circular, we dispose of this appeal at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel on both sides. The impugned circular of the respondent runs as follows:

(2.) In support of the writ petition it is stated in the affidavit that in pursuance of the circular the S.Rs. in C.F.R. Nos. 143 to 146/95, 157, 158/95, 163 to 165/95, 183/95, 207/95 and 338/95 were returned on the ground of the consumers being not members of the organisation. It is urged by Mr. B. V. Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant that the circular is illegal in conflict with the provisions of Section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' ) and hence it is liable to struck down.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the circular to be based on the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in Telephone Services Society v. Calcutta Telephone, 1995 (2) Consumer Protection Reporter (sic). It is his further submission, as a matter of information to the Court, that some contempt proceedings are pending against the petitioner as arising out of the same circular inasmuch as the petitioner has abused and scandalised the respondent because of non-entertainment of the applications of the consumers filed through the petitioner-Organisation. It is also the submission that in many cases applications are not entertained on other grounds also apart from the cases being not entertainable by the circular in question. Even a further ground is urged that the order passed by the respondent is appealable before the State Commission and hence the writ petition should not be entertained.