Dismissed

Jayanta Chattopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Jul 2021WPA/11083/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking enforcement of a Consumer Commission order regarding a plea on roperty that vested in the State. The Court held that enforcement lies under the Consumer Act, not the writ jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The decision on merits is left open.

Jayanta Chattopadhyay Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Consumer Protection | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

20-07-2021 ct no. 13 Sl.72

¶2

¶3

WPA 11083 of 2021 Jayanta Chattopadhyay

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of West Bengal & Ors. (Via Video Conference)

¶6

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Avirup Mondal, Mr. Anand Jha

¶7

…for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Samrat Sen, ld. A.A.G., Ms. Sutapa Shyamal, Mr. Saikat Chatterjee

¶9

…for the State

¶10

Mr. Raja Biswas

¶11

….for the respondent no.9

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the State Government to consider an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated February 4, 2020 in Complaint Case No. CC/417/2019, particularly, I.A. No. 55 of 2020 (Jayanta Chattopadhyay vs. Sujit Kumar Ghosh & Ors.). It is submitted that the petitioner had purchased the flat on property being promoted by the respondent no. 3. It transpired that property on which the flats were constructed, has vested in the State. The petitioner had approached the State Consumer Redressal Commission under the provisions of the

¶13

¶14

Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for various reliefs against the promoter.

¶15

In the said proceedings, the State Commission passed an order dated February 4, 2020 directing status quo to be maintained against the creation of third party rights until the next date.

¶16

Assuming for the sake of argument of the said order subsisting today, the petitioner had approached the State Government communicating the order of the said Commission and asking the State, i.e., particularly, the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue not to register any further documents in respect of the said property.

¶17

It is submitted that the registration of documents is going on despite such communication. The petitioner submits that continued registration of documents would result in multiplicity of judicial proceedings and prejudice.

¶18

This Court has carefully considered the petitioner’s submissions and heard Mr. Samrat Sen, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an unreported decision of the Telengana High Court in WP 26137 of 2019 (T. Ganesh vs. The

¶20

¶21

State of Telengana) delivered on January 23, 2020. It is seen that the facts of the said decision are different from the facts of the instant case.

¶22

This Court even otherwise cannot bring itself to agree with the views expressed by the Hon’ble Telengana High Court.

¶23

It is now well-settled that an order of a civil Court or any other statutory fora cannot be executed through the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has sufficient provisions for enforcement of its orders.

¶24

The other prayers made by the petitioner for cancellation of title deeds and declaratory relief, cannot also be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, since they are private remedies, inter alia, available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

¶25

This Court is, therefore, inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the State that the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶26

Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶27

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the contentions between

¶28

¶29

the writ petitioner and the respondents, the said is left open to be decided by an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶30

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶32

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Jayanta Chattopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanta Chattopadhyay v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

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

Akbar Ali Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hafizul Gazi and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Saraswati Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ketab Ali Molla and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Payel Karmakar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Mohibul Islam Vs Cesc Ltd. and Ors.