Disposed

M/S Nasheman Constructions and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024WRIC/19960/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court declined interference under Article 226, holding that jurisdictional issues requiring factual appraisal do not warrant writ review. The court disposed of the petition by urging statutory appeal within two weeks and stayed coercive measures by the Commission for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to file statutory appeal within two weeks; coercive measures suspended for four weeks.

M/S Nasheman Constructions and Another vs State of Up… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114594-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19960 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Nasheman Constructions And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.,Syed Ahmed Faizan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri S.F.A Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Syed Ahmed Faizan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aligarh in Case No.211 of 2023 (Mohd. Ahmad Khan Vs. Shakeel Khan and 2 Others). By the impugned order the Commission has awarded Rs.47,50,000/- together with interest to the private respondent.

¶8

Submission is, the private-respondent nos.3 and 4 are not consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further challenge has been raised that the findings recorded by the Commission to hold that the private-respondent are consumers, is perverse and contrary to the settled law.

¶9

In such circumstances, it has been strenuously urged that the respondents are seeking recovery of the disputed demand. Pending this writ petition, coercive measures has been initiated by the Commission. Those has been referred to in the supplementary

¶10

affidavit filed today. That affidavit has been taken on record.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would submit that order impugned is appealable under the above described Act. Questions being raised involve issues of fact and law as may require evidence to be appreciated before any firm conclusion may be reached. In essence, it has been submitted, there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction. Rather the lack of jurisdiction is being pleaded in the realm of disputed facts. Thus the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others Vs. M/s Commercial State Limited) 2021 (10) Scale 665 , is distinguishable.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is not the case of the petitioners that no complaint may ever be lodged against the petitioners with respect to the apartment sold by them. Rather, the objection is that on facts the privaterespondents are not such persons who may be entitled to any relief in the claim petition instituted by them with respect to the apartment sold by the petitioners. Thus, facts would have to be ascertained before any firm conclusion may be reached as to the maintainability or otherwise of the claim petition. Also we are cognizant that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would remain a jurisdiction of judicial review as may not encourage us to record findings of fact, routinely.

¶13

In that view of the matter, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. However we take note of the fact that the writ petition has remained pending from 03.05.2024. Thus the period of limitation to file statutory appeal has expired during the pendency of the petition. In view of that, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction, subject to the

¶14

petitioner filing a statutory appeal against the impugned order within a period of two weeks from today, that appeal may be entertained on its own merits without raising any objection as to limitation. Further subject to the petitioner filing a stay application supported by appropriate affidavit along with the appeal memo, that application may be dealt with and appropriate order passed within a further period of two weeks without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order.

¶15

Subject to the compliance made by the petitioner, for a period of four weeks or till the disposal of stay application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures may be adopted against the petitioner.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 A Gautam

¶17

(Donadi Ramesh,J.) (S.D. Singh,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Nasheman Constructions and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Nasheman Constructions and Another v. State of Up and 3 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

Similar cases

Ravindra Pratap Shahi vs Union of India and 2 Others

Sri Amar Singh Pal vs Smt. Shweta

Ajay Pratap Singh vs Smt Sushmita Kushwaha

Smt Priya Yadav vs Ajeet Yadav

Ramsuta Devi vs State of Up and Another

Abdul Ansari and Another vs State of Up and 8 Others