IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 129 of 2008
with
L.P.A. No. 227 of 2008
Anil Chandra Biswas .... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others (in both appeals) ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Appellants : M/s P.K.Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate
K.K.Mishra, Md. Hatim,
& R.V. Mahto, Advocates
For the Respondent-State : G.P.-II
For Respondent no. 3 : Mr. J. Nath, Advocate
------
Dated: 20th of May, 2011
Two Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred against two
separate orders passed by two different Benches and in W.P.(C) No. 3069 of
2007 vide order dated 3rd March 2008, the learned Single Judge of this Court
has held that Complaint Case No. 259 of 2006 filed before the District
Consumer (Disputes Redressal) Forum, Ranchi is maintainable in view of
the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Lucknow
Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta {(1994) 1 SCC 243)} and Bangalore
Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank {(2007) 6 SCC 711}.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that those are the
matters where the Corporation or the Government Undertakings were the
service providers, whereas in this case, the appellant is a private individual
and it was a case of civil dispute and therefore, the complaint was not
maintainable. In another Letters Patent Appeal, the impugned order was
passed in W.P.(C) No. 3145 of 2007 on 19th April 2008 holding that the
petitioner should approach the concerned District Consumer Forum and may
raise objection about the non-maintainability of the complaint and only on
this ground, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
may be permitted to raise objection before the Consumer Forum with respect
to maintainability of the complaint, but since in W.P.(C) No. 3069 of 2007,
vide order dated 3rd March 2008, it has been held that the complaint is
maintainable, this finding may come in the way of the appellant, which has
been recorded without noticing the argument of the appellant that in facts of
this case, the complaint was not maintainable because of the reliefs claimed
as well as because of the fact that it is a civil dispute, wherein the scope of
Consumer Forum under the Act is limited and can be invoked only in certain
circumstances.
4. Since the petitioner without raising any objection before the
Consumer Forum, straightway preferred writ petitions before this Court and
both the writ petitions have been dismissed; one on the ground that the writ
petitioner may raise objection before the District Consumer Forum and
another on the ground that the complaint is maintainable without discussing
the argument of the petitioner and, therefore, so far as the petitioner’s
grievance that his argument has not been considered much less to reject the
argument. Therefore, we deem it fit to set aside the order dated 3 rd March
2008 only with respect to the finding that the complaint is maintainable with
liberty to the appellant-writ petitioner in both the matters to approach the
District Consumer Forum in the said complaint cases and they may raise
their objections against the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and the
Forum may decide that objection uninfluenced by the findings recorded in
the order dated 3rd March 2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3069 of 2007.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
APK/R.Kr.