P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Notwithstanding the complainant -- Opp. Parties are different in two consumer dispute cases, since similar question of law is involved and the parties to the proceedings are represented by same set of lawyers, on their request both the Writ Petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Smt. Annapurna Jena, Opp. Party No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 2662 of 2003 filed Consumer Dispute Case No. 4 of 1997 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Keonjhar (in short 'District Forum') with the prayer to direct the Writ Petitioner, i.e., the Executive Officer Sri Baladev Jew Bije at Keonjhar and the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar to execute sale deed of certain properties of the deity as per the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments in O. A. No. 9 of 1986.
3. Smt. Premalata Jena, Opp. Party No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 2817 of 2003 also filed Consumer Dispute Case No. 5 of 1997 in the same District Forum for similar relief on the same facts and circumstances and claimed the relief from the Executive Officer and the Commissioner of Endowments, as noted above.
4. Common objection, which was raised by the Executive Officer, was regarding want of jurisdiction of the District Forum to decide the dispute and further that the permission granted under Section 19 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short 'Endowment Act) stood expired on expiry of period of six months from the date of disposal of the above noted O. A. No. 9 of 1986 and, therefore, the Executive Officer had no legal competency, status or capacity to alienate the property of the deity without fresh/further order from the Commissioner of Endowments. The District Forum decided both the cases in favour of the complainants on the grounds that, (i) when the complainant had paid part of the consideration money for purchase of a piece of land and in the past the Executive Officer had directed for payment, therefore, the District Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, and (ii) under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Executive Officer was to execute the sale deed.
5. Decisions in both the Consumer Dispute Cases were challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Orissa, Cuttack (in short 'State Commission') vide Consumer Dispute Appeal Nos. 991 of 1997 and 990 of 1997, respectively. On 11.12.2001 the State Commission passed the following order in each of the appeals.
'Heard Mr. Bimbisar Dash, the Learned Counsel for the complainant -- respondent. None present for the Executive Officer, Bijeshree Baladevjew Keonjhar and Commissioner of Endowments. This is a matter of 1997. We have thought it appropriate to decide the matter on merit.
The dispute between the parties is that the complainant purchased Ac. 0.05 decimals of land from the present appellant after due permission from the Endowment Commissioner as required under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951. On going through the grounds of the appeal we find there is dispute about the demand of enhanced price for the land. But this Commission has no power to interfere with the escalation cost of the land. Therefore we express no opinion on that.
So far as the impugned order is concerned, a direction has been given to the present appellant to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. On going through the impugned order we do not find any infirmity in the order. Fact remains that the complainant has already been given delivery of possession in respect of the land in question. We confirm the order and dismiss the appeal but without any cost. Compliance of this order be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.'
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that in the appeal petitioner inter alia challenged to want of jurisdiction of the District Forum to decide such disputes. Keeping in view different provisions in the Endowments Act and particularly Sections 19 & 73 read with Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'C.P. Act', there cannot be any doubt that the forums provided under the C. P. Act have no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes and therefore the decision of the consumer forum in issuing direction for execution of the sale deed and the subsequent direction on 4.3.2003 in C.D. Execution Case No. 8 of the 1998 and C. D. Execution Case No. 9 of 2003 (Annexure-3 in each of the Writ Petitions) are illegal and such orders be quashed. He also advanced argument together with the Commissioner of Endowments regarding non-maintainability of the claim for purchase of the deity's landed property by the complainant in view of expiry of the period of operation of the order under Section 19 by the date of alleged negotiation between the complainant and the Executive Officer.
7. The complainant-Opp. Party No. 1 in each of the Writ Petitions advanced argument that the Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to decide such a matter for the deficiency in rendering the service by Opp. Party No. 1. They however did not give any reply to the argument of the petitioner in the context of Section 19 & 73 of the Endowments Act and Section 3 of the C. P. Act. The complainant-Opp. Party No. 1 in each of the Writ Petitions further argued that when alternative remedy is available to the petitioner in accordance with the provision in Sections 19 & 21 of the C. P. Act, therefore, the Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 is not maintainable.
8. In reply, petitioners argued that Section 19 is not applicable to the present case and Section 21, Clause (b) provides for suo motu supervisory jurisdiction of the National Commission and therefore the Writ Petition is maintainable. They further argued that since the appeal was decided behind their back, the Writ Petitioners are desirous to participate in the hearing before the State Commission, and with that direction the appeals may be remanded to the State Commission.
9. Sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 provides that on an adjourned date of hearing of the appeal if the appellant or his authorized agent fails to appear, then it is in the discretion of the State Commission either to dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the case. Under such circumstance and in view of the provision in Section 21(b) of the C.P. Act, which provides revisional jurisdiction with the National Commission, we could have adhered to the ratio in the case of GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. The AES Corporation and Ors., : AIR2004Ori186 , relied on by the Opp. Party No. 1, to decline to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction on availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners. But keeping in view the ratio in case of J.J. Spinners Ltd. v. 'The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa and Ors., 1997 (II) OLR 179, wherein their Lordships adhering to the principle as stated in the preceding citation, also opined that where the Principle of natural justice is violated by not providing an opportunity of hearing, even in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 & 227 can be invoked. Therefore, we consider the contention of the petitioner in the light of that ratio.
10. Admittedly, Section 3 of the C.P. Act mandates that provision of that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In between C. P. Act and the Endowments Act the latter statute is a special law and the former is a general law and, therefore, the special law has to supersede the general law. In the case of Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, : [1995]2SCR1 , relied on by the Writ Petitioner, the Apex Court while expressing their dissatisfaction for the National Commission to invoke its jurisdiction in relation to entertaining of a motor accident claim case by the State Commission, decided that in between the C.P. Act and the Motor Vehicles Act the latter is a special statute and the provisions therein are to supersede in its operation both relating to the manner and the forum which should determine a motor accident claim. Therefore, once the landed property of a public religious institution is involved, if it is covered by the provision of Endowments Act, and by virtue of provision in Section 73 of the Endowments Act jurisdiction of all other Courts are ousted. In the above context, ratio in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, 2004 AIR SCW 2362, which is relating to award of interest by the Consumer Forum, has no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similarly, ratio in the case of Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. N.K. Modi, 1996 (II) OLR (SC) 502, relied on by the Opp. Party No. 1, has no relevancy in as much as in that decision the Apex Court examined and opined that the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to ask for arbitration proceeding. On the other hand, in the case of State of Gujurat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot and Anr., : AIR1996SC2664 the Apex Court held that,
'4. We find this very difficulty to appreciate. If a Court does not have jurisdiction, it does not have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that one of the parties involved is a Gram Panchayat or the period involved is very short or the amount involved is very small. If a Court does not have jurisdiction, it is the obligation of the Appellate Court so to hold and to set aside the order under appeal.'
11. In both the appeals before the State Commission the deity was being represented by the Executive Officer inasmuch as the property belongs to the deity. A deity is a perpetual minor. Under such circumstance, when an appointed guardian does not appear to represent the interest of the minor, then the concerned Court has to consider if a Court's guardian should be appointed to protect the interest of the minor. Such a thing, for reasons best known, could not come to the mind of the State Commission when it exercised its discretion under Sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 to decide the appeal on merit. That has resulted in illegality. Apart from that, the provision in Sub-rule 6 mandates that an appeal can be decided on merit even in the absence of the appellant. If that be so, then the State Commission did not at all consider what were the grounds raised in the appeal and whether they are sustainable or not. The purpose of quoting the order of the appellate forum (in Paragraph-4 of the judgment) is to indicate that the provision in Sub-rule 6 was followed with breach of requirement of law. Even, as an alternative argument, the Writ Petitioners have expressed their desire to have their say before the State Commission. Therefore, it is appropriate that while setting aside the orders Annexure-2 in each of the Writ Petitions (i.e., the judgment of the State Commission in C.D. Appeals No. 990 & 991 of 1997) this Court remands the matter for adjudication of both the appeals afresh in accordance with law. The order Annexure-3 in each of the Writ Petitions passed by the District Forum in the Execution Proceeding is therefore presently not executable inasmuch as they executed their order on dismissal of the appeals. Under such circumstance, the order Annexure-3 in each of the Writ Petitions is also quashed.
12. Since the matter has been remanded to the appellate forum, i.e., the State Commission, therefore we do not consider at present quashing of the order of the District Forum in each of the cases and that is a matter to be considered by the State Commission.
Both the Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly by quashing the orders Annexures 2&3 in each of the Writ Petitions and remanding the consumer dispute appeals to the State Commission for disposal in accordance with law. The Cost shall abide the result of the appeal.
A.K. Samantray, J.
I agree.