Disposed

Consortium of South India Consumer Organisations v. Union of India

Delhi HC21 May 2024W.P.(C)/7353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of rejection of registration as a consumer organisation; petitioner did not press the prayer challenging the Registration Regulations. Court disposed of the petition directing TRAI to communicate reasons for its 17.04.2023 rejection within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to TRAI to communicate reasons for the 17.04.2023 rejection decision within two weeks.

Consortium of South India Consumer Organisations Vs Union… — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7353/2024 & CM APPL. 30686/2024

¶4

CONSORTIUM OF SOUTH INDIA CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Priyanka Sachdeva, Ms. Shivani Gupta and Mr. Deepanshu Gupta, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Natarajan and Ms. Kamana Pradhan, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 21.05.2024

¶8

Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: -

¶9

“a) Issue a Writ, declaring Registration of consumer Organizations Regulation, 2013 as arbitrary and vague, violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India to the extent to which it is arbitrarily denying the Petitioner his fundamental rights.

¶10

b) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction for quashing of the rejection of Respondents dated 17.04.2023 to the application of the Petitioner dated 01.12.2022.”

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that she does not press prayer ‘a’. She states that the present writ petition qua prayer ‘a’ be dismissed.

¶12

She, however, states that no reasons for rejection of application filed by the Petitioner for registration as consumer organisation have been

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/05/2024 at 11:51:32

¶15

communicated to the Petitioner. Relying upon Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 , she submits that it is essential for any authority exercising quasi-judicial functions to record reasons in support of its decision.

¶16

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petition and application are disposed of with a direction to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to communicate the reasons in support of its decision dated 17^th April, 2023 (annexure P-3 to the present writ petition) within two weeks, if not supplied earlier.

¶17

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶19

MAY 21, 2024/ rhc

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/05/2024 at 11:51:32

Consortium of South India Consumer Organisations v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Consortium of South India Consumer Organisations v. Union of India

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

Pankaj Sharma Vs Insurance Ombudsman and Anr.

Sks College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

Shri Guru Ram Das Institute of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

Sardar Ajit Singh College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Padhy Vs National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Dharminder Sarna Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Ankit Agarwal -Legal Heir of Late Shanti Kumar Aggarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Saksham Commodities Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 22(1), Delhi & Anr.

Apeejay School, Sheikh Sarai Vs Sandeep Kumar & Anr.

Meet Shokeen Vs Union of India through Secretry Ministry of Finance & Ors.

Neha Gupta Vs Risalo Devi & Anr.

Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs Rajan Babu Institute of Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis and Others

Balbir Singh Saini and Ors. Vs Ganga Dutt Saini and Ors.

Haryana Multi-Purpose Cooop Marketing Society Ltd. Anr. Vs District Magistrate South East and Ro of Nafed and Ors.