Kirit Ramnaji Thakore. Vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd Thro. Ashesh Thakore Company. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....- code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned single judge of the patna high court in civil revision no. 945 of 2002. while the aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants smt. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas executed a general power of attorney on 31.7.1992 in favour of umesh chandra and dr. sanjeev kumar mishra and the same was registered. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of..........article 226 of the constitution is not maintainable as appeal lies against the order of the state consumer forum before the national consumer forum, new delhi.2. in reply, the learned counsel for the service provider submits that in similar matter one of the consumers moved before the national consumer dispute redressal commission, new delhi. in revision petition no.1703 of 2010, the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi by order dated 21.05.2010 relying upon the judgment of the supreme court in the case ofgeneral manager telecom vs. m. krishnan, reported in 2009(8) scc 481, refused to entertain such revision as, by the supreme court judgment it was held that, any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to.....

Judgment:
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant consumer against the interim order passed by the learned Singe Judge on the ground that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable as appeal lies against the order of the State Consumer Forum before the National Consumer Forum, New Delhi.

2. In reply, the learned counsel for the service provider submits that in similar matter one of the consumers moved before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In Revision Petition No.1703 of 2010, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by order dated 21.05.2010 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofGeneral Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan, reported in 2009(8) SCC 481, refused to entertain such revision as, by the Supreme Court judgment it was held that, any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.

3. The questions arise to be determined in this appeal are :-

[i] Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by the State Consumer Forum?

[ii] Whether an appeal shall lie against such order on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

4. Whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [13 of 1885] is applicable to the respondent service provider and thereby the Supreme Court decision in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan & Others [2009(8) SCC 481 is applicable or not?

5. As determination of the aforesaid questions may render the writ petition infructuous, it will be desirable that the writ petition should also be heard along with this appeal.

6. The parties should be ready for the final disposal of the case on the next date of hearing. Post this Letters Patent Appeal along with Special Civil Application No.8907 of 2010 on 7^th February, 2011 at 2.30 p.m. as the first case subject to part heard.

7. Until further order, the Forum Execution Petition No.31 of 2007 pending before the District Forum of Junagadh shall remain stayed. The interim order passed on 22.12.2008 stands modified to the extent above.