M/S. AMAN MOTORS (NOW CLOSED) THROUGH SRI BABBAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2012, Annexure-9, whereunder revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Patna in Execution Case No. 51/2005, Annexure-8 has been rejected by the State Commission as not maintainable. Earlier a consumer dispute was raised against the petitioner by Respondent No. 3 before the District Consumer Forum which was decided ex parte against the petitioner under orders dated 21.5.2005, Annexure-2. Later Execution Case No. 51/2005 was levied for execution of the order dated 21.5.2005. During the pendency of the said execution case petitioner learnt about the order dated 21.5.2005 and challenged the same before the State Commission in Appeal No. 233/2007 which was dismissed under order dated 17.4.2007, Annexure-3/1.1(sic) Against order dated 17.4.2007 matter was taken to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 1656/2007 which was also dismissed under order dated 4.7.2007, Annexure-4, whereafter matter was taken to Supreme Court in appeal which was also dismissed as has been stated in Paragraph 12 of the writ petition but the order of the Supreme Court has not been placed on record. Having taken the dispute to the State, National Commission as also before the Supreme Court and could not succeed petitioner filed a petition before the District Forum, Annexure-1 requesting the District Forum to launch prosecution under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. after conducting enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as according to the petitioner consumer, Respondent No. 3 had resorted to falsehood before District Forum to obtain order dated 21.5.2005, Annexure-2. Aforesaid petition for initiating prosecution under Section 195 and enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was also filed in the same Execution Case No. 51/2005 filed for execution of order dated 21.5.2005 but was dismissed under order dated 18.3.2011, Annexure-8 on the ground that order dated 21.5.2005 having become final District Forum had no power to review its order. Petitioner challenged order dated 18.3.2011 before the State Commission by filing Revision which was also dismissed holding that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission had the power to review their earlier order dated 21.5.2005, 17.4.2007 as the two orders have been affirmed by the National Commission under order dated 4.7.2007.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society and Others, 2003 AIR(SC) 1043 , submitted that petitioner does not have any remedy against the order dated 18.3.2011, 19.7.2012 before the National Commission as its case was beyond the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection submitted that appeal lies to the National Commission under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the original order passed by the State Commission. The present matter is arising out of an order passed by the State Commission challenging the order passed by the District Forum, appeal shall not lie before the National Commission. He further submitted that revision in terms of sub-section 21(b) of the Act may also not lie before it as the order, Annexure-9 by which petitioner is aggrieved is not arising out of a consumer dispute as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission. The present dispute has arisen out of the consumer dispute filed by Respondent No. 3 which was decided by the District Forum under orders dated 21.5.2005 and affirmed by the State, National Commission under orders dated 17.4.2007, 4.7.2007. During the execution proceedings levied for execution of the order passed by the District Forum, State, National Commission petition for initiating prosecution under Section 195, enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner asserting that the order dated 21.5.2005 was obtained placing reliance on falsehood which was rejected under order dated 18.3.2011, Annexure-8 duly affirmed by State Commission under order dated 19.7.2012, Annexure-9, as such, in my opinion, it is the same dispute which was brought before the District Forum by Respondent No. 3 has been put in execution. Present proceeding for launching prosecution under Section 195, enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is being raised in the same execution proceeding, as such, in my opinion, petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the National Commission in Revision under Section 21(b) of the Act and on the ground that petitioner has an alternative remedy, I reject the prayer made in this petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.