Bombay High Court: The instant writ petition was filed, challenging the order of the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur (“Commission”), that directed to refund sum paid by the respondent to the petitioners, in addition to other expenses and monetary claims in respect of a land-related transaction between the parties. The respondent had objected to the writ petition on the ground of existence of appeal remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”). The single-Judge Bench of Anil S Kilor, J.*, relying on MP State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88, held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is discretionary and not compulsory. The Court found that the Commission had failed to consider the relevant facts in entirety while deciding on the point of jurisdiction, therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commission to be decided on afresh, and the instant challenged order was set aside.
Background
The instant petition challenged the order of the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur (“Commission”), that directed the petitioners to refund the sums, fees, charges and duties (“sum”) paid by the respondent to the petitioners, added with interests accrued from the date of execution of the agreement and General Power of Attorney until the realisation, along with compensation for mental and physical agony.
The dispute was regarding a plot of land (“plot”) carved out from the ancestral agricultural property of petitioner that was agreed to be sold to the respondent on ‘as is where is’ basis; a Deed of Possession had also been executed, transferring the possession to the respondent.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the Commission, claiming the sum paid to the petitioners along with the compensation for the failure in execution of the sale deed. The petitioners objected to the respondent’s complaint by stating that the plot in question was an open plot, and that they had already handed over the possession to the respondent and contended the maintainability of the complaint. The Commission rejected the objections and allowed the complaint.
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court found that the respondent had opposed to the instant petition on the ground that appeal remedy has already been provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”), therefore contending that the instant petition was not maintainable, due to the petitioners’ appeal before the State Commission.
The Court relied on MP State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion of the Court and not of compulsion.
In the instant case, the Court noted that the Commission had not considered the entirety of relevant facts while deciding the point of jurisdiction, and therefore opined that despite the availability of alternative remedy, the petitioners’ writ petition is maintainable.
The Court remanded the matter to the Commission for deciding the point of jurisdiction afresh and set aside the disputed order. The Commission was directed to decide the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.
[Sulekha v. Raju Bhaskarusrao Mahajan, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1597, decided on 30-05-2024]
Judgment authored by: Justice Anil S Kilor
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: MD Samel, Advocate
For the respondent: Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate