Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3592 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chand Gupta Respondent :- District Consumer Redressal Forum & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Manish Goyal Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought a writ to issue
suitable order or direction setting aside the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by
the respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No.366 of 2003 (Annexure-1 to the
present writ application).
It appears that Application No. 366 of 2003 was filed by three persons namely
Shri Viajy Kumar Gupta, Master Sashank Gupta and Master Himanshu Gupta
against Raj Financers , Prahlad Kumar Gupta, Murari Lal Gupta, Ramesh
Ch.Gupta, Kamla Gupta and Amit Kr.Gupta. The said application was
allowed by the District Consumer Forum by the order dated 18.11.2006.
Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the
petitioner was earlier a partner but he resigned from the partnership in
accordance with law and due notice of resignation was published in the
gazette. The other orders sought to be challenged in the writ petition are the
consequential orders passed to enforce the main order dated 18.11.2006.
At the very outset it was pointed out to Shri Manish Goel, learned counsel for
the petitioner that we are not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition
for the reasons more one. Firstly, the order is of the year 2006. Secondly, the
petitioner has alternate remedy by way of appeal as provided under section 15
of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In reply, Shri Manish Goel, Advocate
submits that the said remedy is not efficacious as the appellant is required to
deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the maintainability of appeal. There is no
challenge to the said provision in the present writ petition.
Besides the above, the consumer forum has directed to pay a sum of Rs.
4,79,000/-. Looking to the order passed by the consumer forum, if the
petitioner is required to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- it cannot by any stretch
of imagination be said as onerous.
In substance by means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum. At this
distance of time, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on
the ground of laches also.
The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that since
there is no power for grant of interim order, this Court should interfere in the
present writ petition. We are not at all impressed by the said argument of the
counsel for the petitioner. The intention of the legislature is clear that in such
matter, the interim order should not be passed.
We are not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The petition is
Order Date :- 29.1.2010