2021 (6) TMI 1180 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to declare the action of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission) - institution of another round of proceedings by the respondent No. 4/Developer before the District Forum, by invoking Section 151 of the CPC, for acquitting him - entertainment of an appeal by State Commission purportedly filed u/s 73 of the Act of 2019 against the order of the District Forum, dismissing the application filed by the respondent No. 4/Developer. HELD THAT - Ordinarily, this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not entertain a petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari, if there is an alternate remedy available under the statute. However, when administrative authorities, judicial forums or quasi-judicial authorities act in excess of the jurisdiction vested in them or act without any jurisdiction, this Court is not precluded from exercising its discretion in favour of an aggrieved party to prevent abuse of the process of law, undo patent illegality, intervene where the proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or the orders passed are grossly arbitrary. The self imposed restriction of the High Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy, is founded on the principles of propriety, equity, consistency and for enforcing rule of law. However, such a restriction shall not deter this Court from invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction to advance the cause of justice and to do substantial justice to the parties concerned. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a grievance that by entertaining the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4/Developer, the State Commission has acted wholly without jurisdiction. The Consumer Protection Act is a special statute and a self contained code - It is thus evident that not every appeal filed against any order of the District Forum can be entertained for the asking and a stay order granted mechanically. When it is a question of jurisdiction, the appellate authority, should have first satisfied itself as to whether it is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal at all, more so, when the District Forum has clearly held that an application moved by the respondent No. 4 under Section 151 CPC, is not maintainable. The facts of this case remind the court of the oft quoted legal maxim Justice delayed is Justice denied which is not a cosmetic statement. All the stake holders have a role to play in ensuring that justice is not delayed. There are several factors that contribute to inordinate delays in the disposal of cases, including the abuse of the legal process, adoption of dilatory tactics and cumbersome procedures. The case at hand is a classic example of abuse of the legal process - The reason being that the respondent No. 4/opposite party before the District Forum has left no stone unturned to deprive the petitioner of the fruits of the orders to the point of filing an appeal against an order passed by the District Forum, where no such appeal is maintainable in law, wherein the State Commission has proceeded to grant a stay order in his favour. The present petition is allowed and it is held that application filed by the respondent No. 4/Developer before the State Commission is not maintainable in law.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the respondent No. 4/Developer could invoke Section 151 of the CPC for acquittal in a disposed of execution application (E.A. No. 38 of 2013).
2. Whether the State Commission could entertain an appeal under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the District Forum's order dismissing the application filed by the respondent No. 4/Developer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 151 of the CPC for Acquittal:

The primary issue was whether the respondent No. 4/Developer could file an application under Section 151 of the CPC in a disposed of execution application (E.A. No. 38 of 2013) for acquittal. The judgment highlights that the original proceedings and execution proceedings had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The District Forum had dismissed the application filed by the respondent No. 4/Developer under Section 151 CPC, stating that it was not maintainable as the Forum had become 'functus officio' after delivering its order. The court emphasized that the application was an attempt to review the conviction order, which had already been finalized, and such a move was deemed impermissible. The court noted that the respondent No. 4/Developer was attempting to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly, which constitutes an abuse of the legal process.

2. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 73:

The second issue was whether the State Commission could entertain an appeal under Section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the District Forum's order. The court clarified that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4/Developer was not maintainable as the order dated 09.03.2021, dismissing I.A. No. 29 of 2021, was not an order under Section 72(1) of the Act, 2019, which would warrant an appeal under Section 73. The court criticized the State Commission for mechanically entertaining the appeal and granting a stay order without first determining its jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. The judgment concluded that the State Commission lacked the inherent jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the appeal was therefore not maintainable.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, holding that the appeal (F.A. No. 144 of 2021) filed by the respondent No. 4/Developer was not maintainable. Consequently, the proceedings in the appeal and the interim order dated 25.03.2021 were declared non est and quashed. The court emphasized the abuse of the legal process by the respondent No. 4/Developer, which resulted in undue delay in the petitioner receiving the benefits of the orders passed in her favor. The judgment serves to reinforce the principle that justice delayed is justice denied and underscores the responsibility of all stakeholders to prevent abuse of the legal process.