Dismissed

Kisan Majdoor Mahavidhlaya Bhiti Distt. Mau Thru. Its Manager and Another v. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024A227/3147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter under Article 227, the Allahabad High Court noted that the petition was not pressed by the learned counsel. After observations on maintainability relying on a precedent regarding revision against execution orders, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Kisan Majdoor Mahavidhlaya Bhiti Distt. Mau Thru. Its… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47019

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3147 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kisan Majdoor Mahavidhlaya Bhiti Distt. Mau Thru. Its Manager And Another Respondent :- State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Yadav,Vaibhav Raj

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Present petition has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Revision Petition No. 36 of 2024 (Kisan Majdoor Mahavidyalaya & another Vs. Sanjay Tiwari) and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mau in Execution Case No. 2 of 2015.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection against the petitioner as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a revision under Section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) as the proceedings were initiated under the old act.

¶8

Replying the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that remedy of filing a revision under Section 21 (B) of the Act, 1986 in the execution case is not available to the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow through its Vice Chairman Vs. Ganesh Shankar Tripathi and another) Matters Under Article 227 No. 2846 of 2022 wherein this Court has held that the impugned order passed by the Commission in a execution case is not a consumer dispute. The relevant para no. 11 of the said judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is being reproduced hereunder:-

¶9

"11. In the instant case the order impugned has been passed by the learned Commission in an execution case and not in a consumer dispute and consequently, considering the provisions of Section 21(b) of the Act read with definitions as given in Section 2(c) and 2(e) of the Act 1986, it is apparent that the petitioner does not have a remedy of filing of a revision before the learned National Commission."

¶10

Considering the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, the writ petition is maintainable.

¶11

Now, narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 3 has filed a case for execution of judgment and order dated 20.02.2010 before the District Consumer Forum, Mau in which on non appearance and non deposition of decreetal amount, non bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner by the District Consumer Forum, Mau by passing impugned order dated 23.02.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which was dismissed by passing the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 by non speaking order and without assigning any reason for the rejection.

¶12

On being asked from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why he had not appeared in the execution case and not deposited the decreetal amount, it is submitted that a compromise was anticipated with the respondent no. 3 and that is the reason why he had not appeared and not deposited the decreetal amount in the execution case.

¶13

The Court has further asked whether the judgment passed in favour of the respondent no. 3 by the District Consumer Forum, Mau had ever been challenged by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has submitted that the judgment dated 20.02.2010 was challenged by the petitioner before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow and the matter was dismissed for non prosecution by order dated 07.12.2012. Against the said order, a case was filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which was also dismissed for non prosecution by order dated 26.07.2016. After the case was dismissed for non prosecution in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the petitioner had preferred a recall application for recalling the order dated 26.07.2016 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow. The said application was dismissed. Against these orders, petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a case i.e. Diary No. 13692 of 2023, which was also dismissed by order dated 05.07.2023.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner does not want to press the present petition and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶15

As prayed, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.7.2024/Ashish

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kisan Majdoor Mahavidhlaya Bhiti Distt. Mau Thru. Its Manager and Another v. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Majdoor Mahavidhlaya Bhiti Distt. Mau Thru. Its Manager and Another v. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Munni Devi Vs Kamal Kumar Tandon

Smt. Chitra Mishra Vs Smt. Purnima Mishra and 12 Others

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 20. , Barabanki and Another

Taufeeq Khan Vs Khursheed Alam

Taufeeq Khan vs Khursheed Alam

Raj Kumar Shukla vs S.K. Agarwal, Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs New Delhi and Another