E.Ummer Bava Vs. the Union of India

E.Ummer Bava vs The Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 06, 2013

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1099080

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1099080
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Decided On: Nov 06, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

E.Ummer Bava

Respondent

The Union of India

Excerpt

.....kozhikode by way of c.c.no.462/2009 and the same is still pending. it is also pointed out that because of the scant regards paid by the second respondent with regard to the claim raised by the petitioner, ext.p2 representation was filed before the first respondent for taking appropriate action against the second respondent including cancellation of the manufacturing licence of the company. it is stated that the petitioner has been let known vide ext.p3 communication dated 19.10.2010 that steps are being taken in view of the request made by the ministry addressed to the second respondent to have the defect, if any, rectified and to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the customer/consumer.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also w.p.(c)no.27203/2013 3 the learned central government counsel appearing for the first respondent, this court finds that no enabling provision of law is brought to the notice of this court so as to cause cancellation of the manufacturing licence of the second respondent company because of the defective piece sold to the petitioner vide ext.p1 sale certificate. in the said circumstances, no fruitful result can be achieved by causing ext.p2 to be considered by the first respondent and hence the said relief is declined. with regard to the defect of the vehicle supplied, this court finds that the issue is pending consideration before the consumer disputes redressal forum, kozhikode by way of c.c.no.462/2009 and as such, it is not liable to be entertained by this court by way of a parallel exercise. in the said circumstances, relegating the petitioner to pursue the matter which is pending consideration before the consumer disputes redressal forum, kozhikode by way of c.c.no.462/2009, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. p.r.ramachandra menon judge sv. w.p.(c)no.27203/2013 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE6H DAY OF NOVEMBER201315TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 27203 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- E.UMMER BAVA, AGED68YEARS, S/O.ALIKUTTY HAJI, VASANTH CONSTRUCTIONS, BAVAS ARCADE, DOWN HILL.P.O., MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, 12A, JAM NAGAR HOUSE NEW DELHI.

2. M/S.SKODA AUTO INDIA LIMITED PLOT NO.A-1/A, SHENDRA, 5 STAR INDUSTRIAL AREA MIDC, AURANGABAD, DELHI. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0611-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 27203 of 2013 (A) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED, 26.3.2009. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, NIL. P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED, 19.10.2010. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.27203 OF2013- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : "i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders on the same, forthwith without any further delay; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to take follow up action on the basis of Ext.P3, without any further delay. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a 'Skoda Superb Car' from the dealer of the second respondent in Kozhikode and W.P.(C)No.27203/2013 2 that the vehicle according to the petitioner was an obsolete one and not liable to be sold in international market or for that matter any where in India as well. The petitioner points out that right from day one, it was prompt in displaying defect and the petitioner had to run from pillar to post to get the same rectified. The demand made by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle did not turn to be fruitful and the petitioner has already approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode by way of C.C.No.462/2009 and the same is still pending. It is also pointed out that because of the scant regards paid by the second respondent with regard to the claim raised by the petitioner, Ext.P2 representation was filed before the first respondent for taking appropriate action against the second respondent including cancellation of the manufacturing licence of the Company. It is stated that the petitioner has been let known vide Ext.P3 communication dated 19.10.2010 that steps are being taken in view of the request made by the Ministry addressed to the second respondent to have the defect, if any, rectified and to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the customer/consumer.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also W.P.(C)No.27203/2013 3 the learned Central Government counsel appearing for the first respondent, this Court finds that no enabling provision of law is brought to the notice of this Court so as to cause cancellation of the manufacturing licence of the second respondent Company because of the defective piece sold to the petitioner vide Ext.P1 Sale Certificate. In the said circumstances, no fruitful result can be achieved by causing Ext.P2 to be considered by the first respondent and hence the said relief is declined. With regard to the defect of the vehicle supplied, this Court finds that the issue is pending consideration before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode by way of C.C.No.462/2009 and as such, it is not liable to be entertained by this Court by way of a parallel exercise. In the said circumstances, relegating the petitioner to pursue the matter which is pending consideration before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode by way of C.C.No.462/2009, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv. W.P.(C)No.27203/2013 4

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties E.Ummer Bava vs The Union of India Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon