MPL COUNCIL BIKANER Vs. SHAMBHU YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five connected appeals under sec. 15 of the Consumer Prote-tion Act, 1986 (for short"the Act") arising out of a common order datecd 17-10-89 passed in different five complaints. They were heard together and we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts leading to these five appeals are identical. We may notice the facts in Appeal No. 107 of 1989. THE complainant has stated in Complaint No. 288/89, which has given rise to Appeal No. 107 of 1989 that he resides within the local limits of the Municipal Council, Bikaner in the building known as Manohar Bhawan, which is situate near Lal Bahadur Sabji Mandi, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. It has been stated that in that locality, there are ******* THE opposite-party did not pay any heed to the complaints made by the complainants. THEy, therefore, filed the complaints on 1-9-89 praying that the opposite-party may be directed to remove the pollution, the details of which have been given in paras 2 and 3 of the complaint. After notice, the opposite-party-appellant raised a preliminary objection stating that the complainants are neither consumers nor the opposite-party renders any service to them and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Act. THE District Forum considered the preliminary objections and by a common order rejected it and held that complaint is maintainable under the Act. Being dissatisfied the opposite party Municipal Council, Bikaner, in all the five complaints have filed the appeal. THE office raised an objection that this appeal is not maintainable under sec. 15 of the Act. An application was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on 21-12-89 that if the appeal is not held to be maintainable, it may be treated as a revision under see. 17 (b) of the Act. On the application of the complainant ail the appeals were tagged.

(3.) BEFOR we proceed further, we may take into account some well-established principles relating to the construction of the provisions of a legislative enactment. While construing the provisions of a legislative enactment, the general rule of interpretation is that the language used in the statute should be so interpreted as to promote the object and purpose of the Act provided that the words used are legally susceptible of conveying such a meaning. It is equally well-settled that the intention of Parliament has to be gathered from the words actually used in the statute and when the language used is clear and unambiguous it is the duty of the court or authority construing the statute to duly give effect to the words contained in the particular provision of the enactment in accordance with their natural, plain and grammatical sense. Another equally established principle of interpretation is that when a word used in a statute has more than one meaning that meaning should be adopted which is appropriate to the context and setting in which the word appears in the particular provision of the enactment having due regard also to the general scheme of the enactment.