Jawaharlal Nehru University, ... vs The Consumers Disputes Redressal ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 869 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. No body is present on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Jawaharlal Nehru University is not a commercial shop and will not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act. Even otherwise, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is bound by the decision rendered by the National Commission. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Registrar University of Bombay v. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat Bombay 1994(1) CPJ 146 (NC) and Joint Secretary Gujarat Secondary Education Board v. Bharat Narottam Thakkar 1994(1) CPJ 187 (NC) that the university while valuating the answer books of a candidate who has appeared for the examination or conducting any examination is not performing a "service which had been hired or availed of for consideration and that no consumer dispute can, therefore, be said to have arisen, if the revaluation has not been done properly. In the instant case it has been contended that as the respondent was not up to mark, he could not have been given admission to the course, however, in view of the writ petition filed by the respondent being C.W. No. 2496/93 and C.M.4935/93, in which this Court granted liberty to the respondent to move a suitable application and, accordingly, the respondent moved an application praying that his case for repeating B.A. level back log courses for which he needed one semester, be forwarded to the Board of Studies. Although he was not entitled to get one grace semester, in view of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the university awarded one grace semester to respondent No. 2 vide notification No. 215/1994. Still respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 and respondent No. 1 consumers Disputes Redressal Forum took cognizance of the complaint and issued notice. Aggrieved by the said action of the District Consumer Forum, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. On 09.8.95 this court stayed the further proceedings before respondent No. 1 in view of the settled position of law that the University while valuating the answer books or while giving the grace period of one semester to the candidate who has appeared for the examination or conducting any examination is not performing a "service" which had been hired or availed of for consideration and respondent No. 2 cannot take advantage of and say that a dispute has arisen on account thereof. Moreover the respondent is said to have been already awarded degree of B.A. In our view, taking cognizance of the complaint of respondent No. 2 was not within the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, the interim order granted earlier is made absolute.

2. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.