Disposed

Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Lieutenant Governor & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/11424/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation, the Acting Chief Justice directed all District Consumer Forums to strictly abide by State Commission decisions holding that Delhi is one district for Consumer Act purposes. The court quashed dismissals based on territorial objections, mandating jurisdiction wherever complaints are filed within Delhi regardless of administrative districts.

What did the court decide?

All District Forums directed to ensure strict compliance with State Commission decisions regarding territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.

Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11424/2016 & CM No.44784/2016

¶4

% Date of decision : 1^st February, 2018

¶5

DELHI STATE & DISTRICT CONSUMER COURTS PRACTITIONER WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.)..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Ajay Kumar Porwal, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Through : Ms. Sakshi Popli and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advs. for R- GNCTD

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶11

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

This writ petition, couched as a public interest litigation, relates to the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Consumer Fora constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

¶13

The petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated 31^st October, 2007 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Revision Petition No. 07/18 Singh’s Dental Hospital v. Amrit Lal Dureja . In this case, a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum (South-West) was taken on the premise that the

¶14

W.P.(C)No.11424/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶15

Dental Hospital of the petitioner was located in the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum (West) whereas the complaint was filed before the District Forum (South – West).

¶16

This objection was rejected by the District Forum (South West), resulting in the filing of the revision petition. By the decision dated 31^st October, 2007, the State Commission, Delhi had held as follows :

¶17

“4. Even otherwise city of Delhi is one District and has been divided into several districts for the sake of administrative convenience and not for the sake of territorial jurisdiction. Consumer Protection Act 1986, provides that there shall be one District Forum in one District. Since Delhi happens to be one District, every District Forum has jurisdiction over every case and if any District Forum takes final decision in the matter, irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdicion, the order cannot be set aside. Order can be set aside, if the person taking final decision is not competent to take decision. District Forums are presided by a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge and since every District Forum is headed by such person, therefore any decision taken by any District Forum irrespective of the complaint being not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned District Forum cannot be set aside or held invalid.”

¶18

The writ petitioner has relied on other orders of the State Commission passed thereafter placing reliance on the decision dated 31^st October, 2007 holding that Delhi was one district for the purposes of the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forums.

¶19

A grievance is made before us that despite the clear dicta of the decisions of the State Commission, the District Forums are not abiding by the same and are dismissing complaints on grounds of territorial

¶20

W.P.(C)No.11424/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶21

jurisdiction in violation of the binding findings.

¶22

It cannot be denied that judicial discipline mandates that the District Forums shall strictly abide by the decisions of the State Commission, which bind their consideration.

¶23

In view thereof, all District Forums shall ensure that they abide by the principles laid down by the State Commission in their decisions.

¶24

This writ petition and application are disposed of in the above

¶25

terms.

¶26

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 01, 2018/ kr

¶29

W.P.(C)No.11424/2016 Page 3 of 3

Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Lieutenant Governor & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi State & District Consumer Courts Practitioner Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Lieutenant Governor & 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

Manoj Mittal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mangal Vs North Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Gnct of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Vs Shri Bhikamber

Mayawati and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Inder Pal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Engineers India Ltd. and Anr.

Businees System India Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar Singh & Anr.

Nk Jagbir Singh (Retd) & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S A2VP Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/S Konka Group Company Ltd.

Indian Optometry Federation Vs Union of India

M/S Konka Group Company Ltd. Vs M/S A2VP Distributors & Anr.

Nyay for Social Justice Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ambuj Art Association and Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Rahees Ahmad Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.