HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. AVTAR KRISHAN AMBEDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 11th July, 1997, against which Haryana Urban Development Authority has filed the present revision petition was passed by Mr. D. D. Yadav, learned President of the District Forum, Gurgaon sitting singly i. e. without associating with him any of the two companion Members as both the companion Members had since completed their term and their successors have been appointed by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection Committee now in August, 1997. Subsection (2-A) of Sec.14 provides that "every order made by the District Forum under Subsection (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceeding : provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one Member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other Member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majorityshall be the order of the District Forum". Sec.18-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 further provides that "when the office of the President of District Forum or of the State Commission, as the case may be, is vacant or when any such President is, by reason of absence otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, the duties of the office shall be performed by such person, who is qualified to be appointed as President of the District Forum or, as the case maybe of the State Commission, asthe State Government may appoint for the purpose". Further Sec.29-A of the Act provides that "no act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution thereof".

(2.) So far as the passing of the order by two Members in the absence of the President of the District Forum is concerned. Sec.18-A of the Act has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gulzari Lal Agarwal V/s. Accounts Officer, 1996 3 CPJ 12 (SC ). According to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court if President of the District Forum has completed his term or somehow not available, other two Members can certainly conduct the proceedings. The only rider being placed by Sec.18-A is, that the proceedings shall be conducted by the Senior Member, if otherwise he is eligible or qualified to be appointed as a President.

(3.) However, so far as the proceedings being conducted by the President in the absence of two Members is concerned, we are left with Sec.14 (2-A) and Sec.29-A of the Act. Sec.14 (2a) is mandatory in character and provides that every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members, who conducted the proceeding, meaning thereby if a particular case has been decided by the President with the association of one of the two Members, he alone has to sign the order. Earlier thereto, it is provided in Sub-section (2) of Sec.14 of the Act that "every proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one Member thereof sitting together". Sec.29-A has not overruled or repealed expressly or impliedly the mandate of the Parliament. It is for a different contingency e. g. if all the seats in a certain House are not filled by Elections etc. , as generally in Lok Sabha when Elections were held in February/march the constituencies of Lahul Sapiti and Nagaland etc. remained uprepresented due to snow bound area, the deliberations made by the House and the proceedings conducted in the absence of the representatives of those areas cannot be set aside due to vacancy in the office. But in the present case the position is otherwise. Here the mandate of the Parliament requires that all proceedings under Sec.14 (1) of the Act shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and atleast one Member thereof sitting together. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11th July, 1997 passed by learned President of the District Forum sitting singly is without jurisdiction being violative of the provision of Sec.14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, we accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the learned District Forum, Gurgaon for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Since it is an old matter the learned District Forum is directed to decide the same expeditiously preferably within two months. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before learned District Forum, Gurgaon on 20th October, 1997.