Dismissed

The General Manager v. Jackson James

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022OP(C)/2808/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging an interim order before the Consumer Forum filed an Article 227 petition to quash the complaint. The Court held the writ petition is not maintainable, as the remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the complaint and interim order was dismissed as not maintainable.

The General Manager Vs Jackson James — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 2808 OF 2012

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶7

2 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

3 STATION MASTER, RAILWAY STATION, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS
 SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH,SC

¶10

RESPONDENTS:-

¶11

1JACKSON JAMES,
SON OF SRI.JACKSON, AGED NOT KNOWN,
RESIDING AT JACK VILLA, SASTHAMKIOTTA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 521.
2CONSUMER DISPUTED REDRESAL FORUM
KOLLAM-691 013.
BY ADVS.
R1 BY SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
 SMT.REENA THOMAS

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

O.P(C). No.2808 of 2012

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2022

¶17

This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs:

¶18

“(i) Quash and strike off Exhibit P-1 Complaint (CC No.117 of 2011) on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam, or in the alternative;

¶19

(ii) Set aside Exhibit P-5 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam and direct the 2^nd respondent to give the petitioners an opportunity to file their written objection to Exhibit P-4 application and hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as laid down in Exhibits P-5 to P-9 judgments passed by this Honourable Court;

¶20

(iii) Issue such other and further reliefs, including the necessary interim orders, as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary to meet the ends of justice under the circumstances of the case.”

¶21

The complaint sought to be quashed is produced

¶22

alongwith the petition on hand as Ext.P1. Ext.P5 is an interim

¶23

order passed on 07.07.2012 in I.A.No.184/2012 in C.C.No.117/2012 registered on the files of Consumer Disputes

¶24

O.P(C). No.2808 of 2012

¶25

¶26

Redressal Forum, based on Ext.P1, whereby the opposite parties who are the General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters, Chennai, the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram and the Station Manager, Railway Station, Sasthamkotta were directed to permit the complainant to travel in the 1^st class coach of Malabar Express using the first class season ticket during day time as was done previously, until further orders. Against the interim direction, the opposite parties have approached this Court in the Original Petition on hand seeking to quash Ext.P1 complaint and Ext.P5, interim order.

¶27

At the time of considering the Original Petition, this Court has also passed an order temporarily staying the operation of Ext.P5 order until further orders.

¶28

It is submitted by the petitioners in the Original Petition that the facility to travel in 1^st class coach of trains belonging to Indian Railway using season ticket is not available now. Therefore, the issue raised for adjudication in the Original Petition has become infructuous and the Original

¶29

O.P(C). No.2808 of 2012

¶30

¶31

Petition is only liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for

¶32

the 1^st respondent has also no contra say in the matter.

¶33

The Apex Court has held in Nivedita Sharma vs.

¶34

Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.10706/2011 arising out of SLP (C) No.17213/2010] as

¶35

follows:

¶36

“..the High Court should not have entertained the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and directed them to avail remedy of Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986….”

¶37

Therefore, the Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the

¶38

Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext.P1 complaint and Ext.P5 interim order is not maintainable before this Court. The remedy of the petitioners being to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Original Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH

JUDGE

NAB

O.P(C). No.2808 of 2012

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF O.P(C) NO.2808/2012

¶46

`PETITIONER’S EX`	`HIBITS:`
`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE`
	`1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE` `PETITIONERS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `DATED 27.04.2012.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF VERSION FILED BY THE`
	`PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `DATED 06.07.2012.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.184 OF 2012 DATED` `07.07.2012 FILED IN EXHIBIT P-1.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P-4 APPLICATION` `DATED 07.07.2012.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.08.2001`
	`IN W.A.NO.3133 OF 2001 OF THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.8.2001`
	`IN W.A.NO.1638 OF 2001 OF THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 1.1.2002`
	`IN O.P.NO.1337 OF 2002 OF THIS` `HONOURABLE COURT`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.2007`
	`OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P(C)` `NOS.3515 AND 4068 OF 2007`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF SPECIMEN SEASON TICKET`
	`ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE`
	`SEASON TICKET HOLDERS WITH THE` `GUIDELINES.`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 28.9.2011`
	`ISSUED BY THE CHIEF COMMERCIL MANAGER` `OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY.`

¶47

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

¶48

 //TRUE COPY//

¶49

 P A TO JUDGE

The General Manager v. Jackson James

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager v. Jackson James

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

M.Haridasan Vs M.Abdullakutty

Shaji Xavier, Vs Mrs. Santhi Kannan

H.a.Nazar Vs P.a.Shanavas(Deleted)

Anish P.S Vs Ramachandran

Ratheesh Vs Sakeer Hussain

Nishad Vs S.Sunilkumar