PATIALA CONSUMERS & TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS FORUM (REGD.) Vs. THE DISTRICT MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated May 24,1995 passed by the District Forum, Patiala whereby time for publication of the Telephone Directory stands extended upto Sept. 30,1995 including the names of the subscribers upto March 31,1995. Earlier, in the main order dated 26.9.1994, a direction was given to publish the telephone directory of the subscribers upto 28.2.1995 by June 30,1995. The orders were passed on the complaint filed by Patiala Consumers and Telephone Subscribers Forum (Regd.) i.e., a forum of public interest litigation as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) Shri Mohinder Singh, representative in this revision petition contends that the order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction as there is no power with the District Forum to modify orders or directions earlier given under Sec. 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. In support thereof, reliance is being placed on the decision of the National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dr. R. Venkateswara Rao, 1993(1) Consumer Protection Reports 105. In that case, State Commission in exercise of powers' under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gave interim directions in the complaint directing the opposite party to pay certain amounts. The National Commission held that such an order was without jurisdiction as the Consumer Forums did not have any power similar to those possessed by Civil Courts in the Code of Civil Procedure for passing orders giving interim directions. After hearing representative of the petitioner, we are of the view that the ratio of the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited (Supra) is not applicable to the case in hand. The original direction given by the District Forum for publication of the Directory stands intact even in the impugned order. There is no modification in that. Such a direction is covered under Sec. 14 of the Act. The grant of time for compliance of the directions given under Sec. 14 of the Act was a discretionary matter with the District Forum and the District Forum had the power to grant time which was given legitimately it also has power to extend such time for compliance of the directions. In that sense, there is no question invoking powers for review or modifying any directions earlier issued. It is a simple case of extension of time for compliance of the directions already given.

(3.) Shri Mohinder Singh, Representative of the petitioner has further argued that no ground or reasons are recorded in the impugned order for extension of the time, it is true that such reasons are not recorded. However, from the perusal of the grounds, it is clear that the reason put forth by the Department was that for lack of staff, necessary directions Could not be complied with. Although, it was required of the District Forum to support its order by reasons, however, in this case it is not considered sufficient ground to hold to be illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum to call for interference therewith.