1. This petition was filed in 1997, in effect, challenging the decision of the District Forum , Begusarai (under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in case No. 57 of 1995; Shashi Kumar v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
2. The facts as are borne out from the very first paragraph of the order of the District Consumer Forum, which has been impugned , is that as the mark sheet of the Mathematics Paper II after re-evaluation not having been supplied, the applicant Shashi Kumar filed an application before the District Consumer Forum for compensation for Rs. 10,000/-. It was his contention that the marks in Mathematics Paper II were beyond his expectation. Thus, he applied for re-evaluation and also deposited the requisite fee of Rs 25/- against receipt No. 301362 dated 10 Sept., 1993. It is asserted that the opposite party did not re-evaluate the Mathematics Paper II so that he had to send a reminder and even then he did not receive the result of re-evaluation. The late receipt of the re-evaluated mark sheet harmed him and he could not receive admission in science class with mathematics as a subject and that his academic career had been hurt.
3. The District Consumer Forum noticed the defence of the opposite party made before it, that is, the Bihar School Examination Board. The submission was to the effect that the complaint itself was not maintainable as the applicant Shashi Kumar could not be a consumer within the meaning of the Act and in the circumstances, the complaint should not be entertained.
4. The District Consumer Forum considered the matter on both the complaint as also the pleas of the Bihar School Examination Board whether on merits or on the challenge of jurisdiction. The District Consumer Forum was of the opinion that the complainant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7000/- and accordingly awarded it.
5. Against the decision of the District Consumer Forum a writ petition has been filed. It is before a Division Bench because the Bihar School Examination Board, creature of a statute, challenges the vires of an enactment, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In effect the State is challenging the vires of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. Whether the District Consumer Forum has jurisdiction or does not have jurisdiction is a plea, which can be raised even in appeal and the matter can be seen on merits whether the Bihar School Examination Board has the attributes, which brings it within the purview of the Act, The plea may be considered. not the Act. Avoiding an appeal under Section 15 as it would He before the State Commission, the present writ petition has been filed. The Bihar School Examination Board challenges the vires of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to have it declared as ultra vires.
7. This Court is of the opinion that there is no argument which the Bihar School Examination Board cannot take even to the extent of unsuiting the consumer, who may have filed the complaint on the ground that the application may not lie. But this Court cannot permit a respondent, which particularly partakes the nature of the State to challenge a federal enactment.
8. In the circumstances, the Bihar School Examination Board may, if so advised, file an appeal, which may be entertained provided it is filed within next thirty days.
9. This writ petition is mis-conceived and it is, accordingly dismissed.