Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj ... vs District Cosumer Dispute ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8363 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University
 
Respondent :- District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-University and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

The present writ petitioner is preferred for quashing the recovery certificate dated 05.10.2018 issued by President, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Etawah (respondent no. 1) to Collector/District Magistrate, Kanpur (respondent no. 2) for recovery of Rs. 65,000/- plus Rs. 15,258.60P i.e. total Rs. 80,258.60P from the petitioner pursuant to the order of respondent no. 1 dated 27.08.2015 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). With a further prayer for quashing the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no. 3 is a student and not a 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the University renders no service as has been defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. Only in this backdrop, while entertaining the writ petition on 7.1.2019, the coordinate Bench has accorded interim protection and the matter is pending since then. From time to time, the interim order has been extended and the same is in operation till date. She has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Maharshi Dayanand University vs. Surjeet Kaur reported in (2010) 11 SCC 159 and has submitted that the petitioner, therefore, was not to be proceeded with in any complaint case under the Act. A similar controversy was involved in Writ - C No. 66969 of 2009 (Bundelkhand University Jhansi vs. Km. Reshma & another) which was decided on 18.12.2018 and the complaint against the University was quashed. She lastly submits that the matter in hand is no more res-integra, therefore, the order impugned is per-se unsustainable.

We have occasion to peruse the record and find that the present matter is squarely covered with the judgment passed in Maharshi Dayanand University (supra) and Bundelkhand University Jhansi (supra), therefore, there is no reason or occasion for us to take a different or contrary view in the matter.

In view of above, we quash the order impugned passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Consumer Case No. 27 of 2015.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 22.3.2023

A.K.Srivastava