Disposed

The Secretary Kuttipuram Grama Panchayath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023WP(C)/11045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition challenging a District Consumer Forum order is generally not maintainable when an appeal to the State Commission is available. However, to grant the petitioner breathing time, the Court extended an interim order, deferring coercive action for 60 days and allowing the petitioner to approach the State Commission.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action based on the impugned order deferred for 60 days; petitioner free to approach appellate authority with time excluded for calculation.

The Secretary Kuttipuram Grama Panchayath Vs State of… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11045 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT CC 362/2019 OF DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

THE SECRETARY,
KUTTIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KARYALAYAM
KUTTIPURAM PANCHAYATH OFFICE
KUTTIPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679571
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RESPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN B2 BLOCK, CIVIL
STATION, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3POTTARATH SHOUKATHALI
S/O BAPPU HAJI, SALAFI (H) KUTTIPURAM P.O ,
MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 679571
BY ADVS.
THAREEQ ANVER K
K.SALMA JENNATH(K/001505/2018)
RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.(K/000960/2018)
SHAHNOY SHAJI(K/001522/2018)
ARUN CHAND(K/000860/2016)
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.11045/2023

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

W.P.(C).No.11045 of 2023

¶17

Dated this the 05^th day of June, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶20

i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to call for reports pertaining to the Ext.P1 order passed by the Hon'ble Forum and to set aside the same.

¶21

ii. To declare that order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not maintainable as the Hon'ble Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints preferred against the deficiency of service of the local authority.

¶22

iii. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

¶23

iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.

¶24

v. To award costs.

¶25

(SIC)

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order

¶27

passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram.

¶28

WP(C).No.11045/2023

¶29

¶30

Admittedly Ext.P1 is an order which can be challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. If that be the case, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be entertained. Moreover, this Court, in Controller of Examinations v. Sreya [2021 (5) KHC 537], observed that in these types of cases, parties should approach the State Forum with appeal and the writ petition need not be entertained.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given a breathing time to approach the State Forum. When this writ petition was admitted, this Court passed the following order on 28.03.2023:

¶32

“Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 1^st respondent. Notice to the 2^nd respondent is dispensed with. Notice by speed post to the 3^rd respondent, returnable in two weeks. Post on 12.04.23.

¶33

Coercive action pertaining to C.C.No.362/2019 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram, will remain suspended for a period of one month. This order will not stand in the way of petitioner preferring appeal before the State Commission.”

¶34

WP(C).No.11045/2023

¶35

¶36

Since there is already an interim order, I think the interim order can be extended for a period of 60 days so that, in the meanwhile the petitioner can get appropriate orders from the State Forum.

¶37

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶38

The coercive action based on Ext.P1 order is deferred for a period of 60 days.

¶39

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is free to approach the appellate authority and obtain necessary orders, if they are advised so.

¶40

While deciding the delay, if any for filing the appeal, the time during which this writ petition is pending before this Court should be excluded.

¶41

sd/-

¶42

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.11045/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11045/2023

¶48

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit1` `THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY` `THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES` `REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM DATED` `17/02/2022 IN CC 362/2019 IS PRODUCED` `HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1.`
`Exhibit P2` `THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE` `DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL` `COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM DATED` `21.10.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND` `MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2.`
`Exhibit P3` `THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE` `PETITIONER TO ISSUE BUILDING NUMBER` `DATED NIL PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED` `AS EXHIBIT P3`
`Exhibit4` `THE TRUE COPY OF THE EA 81/2022 DATED` `20.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT` `CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,` `MALAPPURAM IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND` `MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4`
`Exhibit P5` `THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF` `THE HON'BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE` `REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MALAPPURAM DATED` `15/03/2023 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND` `MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5.`

The Secretary Kuttipuram Grama Panchayath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary Kuttipuram Grama Panchayath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjuraman Pillai Vs Union of India

Rose Ophthalmic Industries Pvt, Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

G Srinivasan Vs State of Kerala

Fasna C. K. Vs Commissioner for Government Examinations

Jaffar P.E Vs the Manager

Sajeena Vs Union of India