SHEKHAR AGRAWAL Vs. MOHD SAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order passed by the M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'the Commission') vide Annexure P-1, whereby the said Commission has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner for default. Assailing the said order it is putforth in the petition that the State Commission could not have decided the appeal in absence of the President. It is apposite to mention here that initially the prayer was confined to the aforesaid extent but later on, an application for amendment was filed to challenge the validity of the Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 of the M. P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. The said amendment was allowed by this Court. It is urged in the petition that the said sub-rules are ultra vires the Act and, therefore, the appeal could not have been dealt with, as has been dealt with.

(2.) TO appreciate the aforesaid averment, it is apposite to refer Sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules. They read as under:-

(3.) MR. A. K. Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has drawn our attention that a similar situation had arisen in the decision rendered in the case of Gulzarilal Agrawal v. The Accounts Officer, III (1996) CPJ 12 (SC), wherein the Apex Court interpreted the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules, which are almost similar to the provisions which warrants our consideration and their Lordships in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment held as under:-