Magma Fincrop Ltd vs Fagu Oram
2021 Latest Caselaw 11189 Ori

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                        W.P.C No. 13859 of 2019
                        (Through Hybrid Mode)

Magma Fincrop Ltd.                     .....                     Petitioner

                                                    Mr. R. Roy, Advocate
                                Vs.
Fagu Oram                              .....                Opposite Party
                                                           Mr. T. Nanda,
                                               Advocate for sole opposite
                                                                    party

                     CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                       ORDER

01.11.2021

Order No. I.A. No.10936 of 2019.

04.

1. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has impugned orders dated 20th June, 2016 and 11th December, 2017 made respectively by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sambalpur and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack. He submits, orders were made in execution proceedings. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Housing Board V. K.A. Nagamani reported in (2019) 6 SCC 424 to submit, there was declaration of law that revision against orders passed in execution cannot be said to be consumer dispute for appeal being preferred or maintained before National Commission. Hence his client has filed the writ petition in this Court.

2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of sole

// 2 //

opposite party and also relies on an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory reported in IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC). He places following passage, which is extracted below:-

"Despite this, we cannot help but to state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Once the Legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher Court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to hypass the statutory appeal to such higher Court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in the present case, the High Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The case is one of improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is not expected of us to deal with this issue at any greater length as we are dismissing this petition on other grounds."

3. In Cicily Kallarackal (supra) Supreme Court said, it is not appropriate for High Courts to entertain the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India against orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to said Court under provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986, petitioner's contention is,

// 3 //

appeal lies to the Supreme Court against order of National Commission. Impugned orders in the writ petition were not made by the National Commissioner but in execution. There should be revision of orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission, in execution of order passed by the National Commission. In Karnataka Housing Board (supra) the Supreme Court made it clear that an order passed in execution under the Consumer Forum Act, 1986 is not an order passed in a consumer dispute.

4. By consent, list on 16th November, 2021.

5. Interim order to continue till disposal of the writ petition.

6. I. A. disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

Prasant