Sanjay R. Kothari and anr. Vs. South Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - sections 2(1)(b)(ii) and 12-maharashtra consumer protection rules 2000 - rules 4(7), 8(7) and 9(6) - advocates act, 1961 - section 33 - bar councils act, 1926 - section 14 - authorised agents - right to appear before district forum/state commission - rules framed under the statute is law - binding so long as they are not declared inconsistent or ultra vires the act - right to appear includes right of addressing the court, examining and cross-examining witnesses, making oral submissions etc. - right of audience inheres in favour of authorised agents - such right not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of advocates act - authorised agents appearing for parties before district forum/state commission cannot be said to carry on the profession of law.;there cannot be any dispute that the rules framed under the statute is law and the rules shall have binding force as long as they are not declared inconsistent or ultra vires the act under which they are framed or for that matter any other law for the time being in force or the constitution of india. as of today, the rules of 2000 hold the field and they are binding on the parties.;sub-rule (7) contemplates appearance of the parties and their authorised agents on the date/dates of hearing and non-appearance on such date may entail dismissal of complaint in default or an exparte order or decision on merits, as the case may be. significantly neither the act nor the rules speak about right of advocates enrolled under the provisions of the advocates act for the parties before the consumer forum. however, undoubtedly, the rights of advocates 'to appear' even before the consumer forum, state commission or national commission flow from the statute, viz. advocates act and an advocate cannot be deprived of such right, though section 30 of the advocates act has not come into force yet is still regulated by section 14 of the bar councils act, 1926.;wider meaning must be given to the expression 'to appear' in reference to the language of sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8. 'the right to appear', therefore includes right of addressing the court, examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc.;in the light of statutory provisions like section 2(1)(b)(ii) and section 12 of the act of 1986 and rules 4(7) and 8(7) of rules of 2000 that right of audience inheres in favour of authorised agents of the parties to the proceedings before district consumer forum and state commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of advocates act.;in the light of the rules 4(7) and 8(7) of rules of 2000, the objects, nature of proceedings and scheme of act of 1986 and the purpose of appearance on the date of hearing, the agents appearing for the parties to the proceedings before district forum/state commission cannot be said to carry on the profession of law.;the rules of 2000 framed under act of 1986 permit authorised agents to appear for the parties to the proceedings before district forum/state commission. such appearance of authorised agents cannot be said to be inconsistent with section 33 of the advocates act. as a matter of fact the state commission and district forum seems to carry misconception that the authorised agents, if permitted audience, shall in fact be carrying profession of law and it is because of this misconception that impugned orders came to be passed.;thus a party to the proceeding before the district forum/state commission has right to authorise a person of his choice to represent him and appearance of such agent authorised by the party on the date of hearing before district forum/state commission is not restricted to physical appearance but includes in terms of rule 4(7), 8(7) or 9(6) of rules of 2000 to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, address the court and take part in the proceedings as the case may be. - code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 41: [ swatanter kumar, cj, smt ranjana desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under section 44 of the code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code. in terms of section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. language of this provision clearly suggested that the police officer can arrest a person without an order from the magistrate. thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of section 156(3) of the code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the police officer. of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the magistrate directs investigation under section 156 (3) of the code by taking recourse to the provisions of section 438 of the code by approaching the court of session or the high court for such relief. thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [jagannath singh v dr. ajay upadyay & anr 2006 cri lj 4274; 2006 (5) air bom r held per incuriam]. - 5. while issuing rule in these writ petitions, since the question of greater importance to the bar was raised, the notice was issued to the bar council of maharashtra and goa and a separate notice to the bar council of india, in pursuance thereof, the bar council of maharashtra and goa as well as all india bar council appeared in these writ petitions and submitted their written submissions, over and above oral submission made at length by mr. we would like to advert to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties in brief. reliance was also placed on the provisions of other statutes like income-tax act, customs act and the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 which permit non-advocates to represent parties before the authorities under those acts. 2001 (3) scc 71 and perfect paper and steel converters private ltd. , air1955bom262 wherein this court, while construing the expression 'appearance, application or act' held that it does not include 'pleading'.he also placed reliance on the decision of this court as well as the apex court in the case of oil and natural gas commission v. with other connected appeals (2000) 5 scc 294 and the decision of this court in the case of perfect paper and steel converters pvt. in his submission, sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 makes it obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or their authorised agent to appear before the district forum on the date of hearing and if they fail to appear on such dates of hearing, the district forums in its discretion dismiss the complaint for default and/or decide it ex-parte. 15. to appreciate the controversy involved in these writ petitions, it would be advantageous at this stage to refer to relevant provisions of the act of 1986, the rules of 2000 and of the advocates act for better appreciation of submissions. in the statement of objects and reasons as well as in the preamble of the act of 1986, the new fora set up are referred to as 'quasi-judicial machineries' and as 'authorities' respectively and not as courts. it is true that the act does not define the expression 'agent' or 'authorised agent' however, the intention of the legislature will have to be gathered on the basis of comprehensive reading of the act as well as rules framed thereunder. as indicted earlier, statements of objects and reasons as well as preamble also clearly indicate that new fora constituted under the act of 1986 are quasi-judicial machineries and/or authorities and not, courts. section 14 of the act of 1986 provides that after the proceedings are conducted under section 13, if the district forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects, specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the things specified therein. section 30 confers on the central government and the state government as well the power to make rules. 18. we would now like to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right is conferred on authorised agents to address the court and the said right flows from the rules of 2000 framed by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the act of 1986. there cannot be any dispute that the rules framed under the statute is law and the rules shall have binding force as long as they are not declared inconsistent or ultra vires the act under which they are framed or for that matter any other law for the time being in force or the constitution of india. the act of 1986 is a special piece of legislation for the better protection of the interests of consumers. consider situation like this; we are of the considered view in the light of statutory provisions like section 2(1)(b)(ii) and section 12 of the act of 1986 and rules 4(7) and 8(7) of rules of 2000 that right of audience inheres in favour of authorised agents of the parties to the proceedings before district consumer forum and state commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of advocates act. the proceedings before such consumer forum cannot be permitted to be formalised like proceedings before civil court. secondly, case in hand arises out of social beneficial oriented legislation enacted for better protection of the interest of consumers. 25. it is now well settled position of law that the right conferred on advocate under the provisions of the advocates act is a statutory right and not a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution. it would be advantageous here to consider in this connection the judgment of the division bench of this court in perfect paper and steel converters private ltd. it has become necessary to state this at a very outset because it will help avoid a good deal of confusion and unnecessary controversy. for this reason as well, therefore, the right of a party to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself cannot be denied, and should not be deemed to have been denied by any enactment, lightly. according to us, this contention is not well merited for various reasons. ' the judgment of this court in perfect paper and steel, of course, relates to the provisions to mrtu and pulp act, 1971 and the regulations made thereunder but is helpful in understanding the right of a party to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself in the proceedings. the apex court considered the provisions of section 24 of the advocates act and section 71 of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 and in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the report observed thus -5. it clearly appears that a distinction has been drawn between a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner in section 71. both may appear before an authority in connection with sales tax cases. the list includes an employee, a relative, a sales tax practitioner and also professionally qualified people like lawyers and accountants. there are various statutes like income tax act, sales tax act and the monopolies and restricted trade practises act which permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities under those acts and those non-advocates appearing for the parties under such acts cannot be said to practise law. like the provisions have been made under the customs act, the income tax act and the monopolies and restricted trade practises act permitting non-advocates to appear, the rules of 2000 framed under act of 1986 permit authorised agents to appear for the parties to the proceedings before district forum/state commission. 29. it goes without saying that if authorised agent appearing for the party to the proceedings misbehaves or does not behave in sober fashion or exhibits violent behaviour or does not maintain the decency and decorum of the district forum or state commission or interferes with the smooth progress of the case or like reason, it is always open to such district forum or state commission to pass an appropriate order refusing such authorised agent the audience in a given case.d.b. bhosale, j.1. these two writ petitions involve common issue as to whether parties before the consumer disputes redressal forum (for short 'consumer forum') and consumer disputes redressal commission (for short, 'state commission') are entitled to be represented by authorised agents who are not enrolled under the advocates act, 1961 and such authorised agents have the right of audience. the counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments only on the aforesaid issue and hence we have not gone into the facts and merits of the complaints filed before the consumer disputes redressal forum (for short, 'consumer forum') by the petitioners. 2. the petitioners in the first writ petition (writ petition no. 1147 of 2002), who are advocates by profession, filed complaint bearing no. 428 of 2000 against respondent nos. 2 and 3 - tour operators before respondent no. 1-consumer forum complaining deficiency in their service. it is the case of the petitioners that after numerous adjournments and at the stage of filing affidavit of evidence, respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an application dated 22nd september 2001 objecting the appearance of shri jahangir gai who was appearing as authorised agent of the petitioners. the petitioners filed their reply to the said application. the said application was heard by respondent no. 1 and by order dated 5th april, 2002 held that shri jahangir gai, the authorised agent of the petitioners, had no right to plead before the consumer forum since he is not enrolled as an advocate under the advocates act, 1961 (for short, 'advocates act'). the said application was disposed of by common order dated 5th april 2002, in complaint nos. 428 of 2000 and 304 of 2000, which is impugned in the said writ petition. 3. the second writ petition (writ petition no. 1425 of 2002) has been filed by original complainant being petitioner no. 1 and his 'authorised agent' being petitioner no. 2. it is the case of petitioner no. 1 that he has filed complaint no. 167 of 1997 oh 17th june 1997 before the consumer forum seeking reliefs against respondent no. 1 for the deficiency in their service. petitioner no. 2 was appearing for petitioner no. 1 as his authorised agent in the said complaint. respondent no. 1 was being represented by respondent no. 2-advocate before consumer forum. respondent no. 2 filed an application objecting appearance of petitioner no. 2 for petitioner no. 1 as his agent contending that addressing the consumer forum amounts to pleading and only an advocate enrolled under the advocates act is vested with that right. the said application was heard by the consumer forum consisting of three members. two members passed an order on 25th september 2001 by which they rejected the application of respondent no. 1 while third member of the consumer forum, who was incidently the chairman, passed dissenting order dated 26th november 2001. the majority judgment was carried in revision application no. 150 of 2001 by respondent no. 1 before the state consumer disputes redressal commission, maharashtra state (for short, state commission). along with the revision filed by respondent no. 1, several other revisions, where similar issue was involved, the state commission stayed the hearing of matters, in which the authorised agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorised agents were injuncted from appearing before the forum. the petitioners have stated that resultantly hundreds of matters before consumer forum where the authorised agents were appearing, have come to standstill. feeling, aggrieved by the interim order dated 21st december 2001 passed by the state commission, the petitioners have impugned the said order in second writ petition. 4. though in the aforesaid writ petitions, the issue involved is common, the difference is that in first writ petition 'the consumer' is before the court contending that he has a right to engage an 'agent' to act, appear and plead before the consumer forum, while in the second writ petition, the authorised agent himself is before the court contending that he has every right to act, appear and plead before the consumer forum as authorised agent of the parties whenever parties so desire. 5. while issuing rule in these writ petitions, since the question of greater importance to the bar was raised, the notice was issued to the bar council of maharashtra and goa and a separate notice to the bar council of india, in pursuance thereof, the bar council of maharashtra and goa as well as all india bar council appeared in these writ petitions and submitted their written submissions, over and above oral submission made at length by mr. singhvi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the state bar council and mr. jamdar on behalf of the all india bar council. 6. the registrar of the state commission respondent no. 3 filed affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the second writ petition. the registrar on the directions of the chairman of state commission, brought to our notice its recent judgment dated 12th june 2002 passed in appeal no. 306 of 2002. in the said judgment the state commission considered an identical issue and held that an authorised agent, who are not enrolled under the provisions of the advocates act and who cannot be subject to any disciplinary action, cannot be allowed to appear before the consumer forum/state commission. 7. in these petitions, the petitioners have claimed the aforesaid right on the basis of rules 2(b), 4(7), 8(7), 9(1) and 9(6) of the maharashtra consumer protection rules, 2000 (for short, rules of 2000), contending that these rules permit a party to appoint an agent to represent him/her before the consumer forum/state commission and since inception of the various consumer fora, viz. district forum, state commission and national commission authorised agents who are not enrolled advocates, are granted right of audience. it is further contended that the provisions of the advocates act would not come in the way of authorised agent to act, appear and plead before the consumer forum. according to the petitioners, the consumer protection act, 1986 (for short, 'act of 1986') is enacted for settlement of consumer disputes and agent representing a party before the consumer fora for the settlement of such disputes, could not be equated with a person practicing law and hence such agent is not affected, by the provisions of the advocates act. the petitioners in support have raised diverse contentions in the writ petitions which we will be dealing with, to avoid repetition, while considering submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the later part of the judgment. 8. we heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, perused the writ petitions, affidavit filed by the state commission and annexures thereto and the written submissions filed by the parties. we would like to advert to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties in brief. 9. ms rajni iyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first writ petition, at the outset, submitted that a party to the dispute before the consumer forum has a right to appoint an agent to represent it and the said right is conferred under the rules of 2000 which are framed by the state of maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 30(2) of the act of 1986. she invited out attention to the provisions of section 33 of the advocates act and submitted that except as otherwise provided in any other law for the time being in force, much less the act of 1986, a person is entitled to appear even though he is not enrolled as an advocate under the provisions of the advocates act and in view thereof a consumer has a right to engage his agent before consumer forum. she specifically invited our attention to the definition of 'agent' under rule 2(b), and rules 4(7) and 8(7) and submitted that an authorized agent under these provisions is allowed to appear before the consumer forum for and on behalf of consumer and opposite party. reliance was also placed on the provisions of other statutes like income-tax act, customs act and the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, 1969 which permit non-advocates to represent parties before the authorities under those acts. it was also submitted that the provisions of the act of 1986 enable not only non-advocate to hear consumer disputes as members of the forum but also enable non-advocate to represent a party before a consumer forum by conferring a right of audience on them. lastly, ms. iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the act of 1986 and the rules of 2000 being later law than the advocates act and also being a special law would prevail over the advocates act. in support ms. iyer placed reliance on the decision in the cases of paradip port trust v. their workmen, : (1976)iillj409sc , solidaire india ltd. v. fairgrowth financial services ltd. and ors. 2001 (3) scc 71 and perfect paper and steel converters private ltd. and ors. v. the bombay national general workers' union and ors. reported in 7989 mh.l.j. 518 = 1989 (1) clr 492. 10. ms. tavadia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the second writ petition while adopting the arguments, advertised by ms iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition, in addition, submitted that the expression 'to appear' used in the rules does not, mean physical presence of the party concerned but it is for prosecuting the case before consumer forum. in other words, appearance of consumer or his authorised agent is for the purpose of taking part in the proceedings and that it includes preparedness to cite evidence and/or to produce documents or to take any other steps for the disposal of the complaint before the consumer forum. she further submitted that the expression 'present' as appeared in the definition of 'agent' does not mean 'only filing' but it also includes to present argument, lead evidence, cross examine etc. by using the expression 'to appear' and 'present', authorized agents are taken out of the purview of the advocates act. according to ms tavadia, appearance of authorised agents before the consumer forum by no stretch of imagination could be construed as 'practicing law'. ms. tavadia in support of her contention, placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of prashant vagaskar and ors v. municipal corporation of greater bombay : air2002bom120 the decision of the apex court in the case of l.h. mahurkar v. bar council of maharashtra and anr., : air1996sc1602 and the judgment of this court in the case of madura coats ltd and anr. v. s.l. mehendle, member, industrial court and anr. : 1998(3)bomcr278 . 11. the learned assistant government pleader appearing for the state commission placed reliance on the affidavit of the registrar filed in the proceedings and invited our attention to the order of the state commission dated 12th june 2002 and submitted that an authorised representative who is not enrolled with the state bar council under the provisions of the advocates act, should not be allowed to appear before the consumer forum. 12. mr. singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the bar council of the maharashtra and goa, on the other hand, submitted that sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 empowers the parties 'to appear' before the state commission or district fora on the date/dates of hearing through its authorised agent but that does not mean an authorised agent is empowered to act, appear or plead on behalf of party before the state commission or district forums. in other words, according to mr. singhvi, an agent is empowered only to present any complaint, appeal or rely on behalf of party to the complaint before the consumer fora by physically remaining present on the date/dates of hearing. in support, he invited our attention to rule (1) of order iii of the code of civil procedure and placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of ashwin shambhuprasad patel and ors v. national rayon corporation ltd., : air1955bom262 wherein this court, while construing the expression 'appearance, application or act' held that it does not include 'pleading'. he also placed reliance on the decision of this court as well as the apex court in the case of oil and natural gas commission v. offshore enterprises inc., : air1993bom217 and harishankar rastogi v. girdhari sharma and anr., air 1978 sc 1090 for construing the expression 'right to practice, appear and plead'. mr. singhvi also submitted that one who is not an advocate cannot assert his right to appear, act and plead as a matter of right and claim right of audience. in support, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of jaymal thakore v. gujarat state charity commissioner, : air2001guj279 . lastly, mr. singhvi submitted that the act of 1986 is absolutely silent as far as right of the parties to engage an authorised representative on their behalf and in view thereof the expression 'to appear' in the rules cannot be said to have conferred right of audience on an authorised agent before the forum. though in written submission, the state bar council has challenged the vires of the rules which, according to the petitioners, confer right of audience, mr. singhvi, learned senior counsel specifically submitted that he is not pressing the said challenge. 13. mr. jamdar, learned counsel appearing for the bar council of india, adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the state bar council and in addition thereto, submitted that in view of section 3 of the act of 1986, it would not be correct to say that the provisions of the act of 1986 will override the advocates act. in other words, according to him, the provisions of the act of 1986 are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, much less the advocates act. he further submitted that those who purport to practice law must be qualified in it and must be enrolled with the state bar council which is constituted under the provisions of the advocates act. in support, he placed reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of dr. haniraj l. chulani v. bar council of maharashtra and goa, : air1996sc1708 thereto in particular. in the alternative, mr. jamdar submitted that assuming a party before the consumer forum has a right to appoint a non-advocate to represent him, this privilege cannot be all pervading one and it is always subject to restrictions. he submitted that even if the party is permitted to appoint a non advocate, he cannot appoint a non-advocate who in the opinion of the consumer forum, has started practicing profession of law. the consumer forum has power to revoke the permission granted even midway during the proceedings and this can be legitimately done if the appointed non-advocate by his cumulative appearances has started practice of law. according to mr. jamdar, to determine whether a non-advocate has begun practice of law, it will be within the power and discretion of the consumer forum, as it would have had advantage of observing from the dais the appearance of such non advocate. mr. jamdar in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in the case of skypak couriers ltd. v. tata chemicals ltd. with other connected appeals (2000) 5 scc 294 and the decision of this court in the case of perfect paper and steel converters pvt. ltd. and anr. v. bombay national workers union and ors. 1984 bcr 30. 14. in rejoinder, mr. c.u. singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in the first petition, since ms rajni iyer for some personal difficulty could not appear, submitted that in the absence of section 30 of the advocates act, even the advocates who appear before the consumer forum, appear as authorized agents. he further submitted that under sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 of the rules of 2000 in the absence of complainant and if the complainant has not engaged an advocate, the forum will have to dismiss the complaint which, according to him, is not contemplated under the said rules. in his submission, sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 makes it obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or their authorised agent to appear before the district forum on the date of hearing and if they fail to appear on such dates of hearing, the district forums in its discretion dismiss the complaint for default and/or decide it ex-parte. in other words, the district forum has no right to dismiss the complaint for default in the absence of complainant if the authorised agent appears before the district forum. according to mr. singh, this shows that the authorised agent is equally competent to appear and plead before the consumer forum. 15. to appreciate the controversy involved in these writ petitions, it would be advantageous at this stage to refer to relevant provisions of the act of 1986, the rules of 2000 and of the advocates act for better appreciation of submissions. in the statement of objects and reasons as well as in the preamble of the act of 1986, the new fora set up are referred to as 'quasi-judicial machineries' and as 'authorities' respectively and not as courts. the act has created dispute resolution authorities at district, state and national levels called district fora, state commission and national commission. section 2 of the act of 1986 defines 'complainant', 'complaint', 'consumer', 'manufacturer', 'service', 'trader', and 'unfair trade practice'. the scrutiny of these definitions indicate that the legislature has attempted to widen the reach of the act. the apex court in the case of lucknow development authority v. m.k. gupta, : air1994sc787 has construed the provisions of the act of 1986'in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. it is held that the primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment.the definition of 'complainant' includes a consumer and the definition of consumer is comprehensive expression which extends from a person who buys any commodity to consume either as eatables or otherwise from shop, business, house, corporation, store, fair price shop to use of private or public service. the definition of consumer is in two parts. the first deals with goods, and other with services. the definition of consumer indicates who can approach consumer forum as complainant - not necessarily aggrieved consumer but also recognised consumer organisation may launch complaint. the definitions of 'manufacturer' and 'service' would indicate against whom the complaint would lie in the event of defects in the goods or deficiency in the service. it is true that the act does not define the expression 'agent' or 'authorised agent' however, the intention of the legislature will have to be gathered on the basis of comprehensive reading of the act as well as rules framed thereunder. section 3 of the act of 1986 provides that the provisions of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. meaning thereby, the provisions of consumer protection act shall not override the earlier enactments. the provisions of sections 10, 16 and 20 of the act of 1986 deal with the composition of district forum, state commission and national commission which consist of district judge, judge of the high court and judge of the supreme court respectively and, in addition thereto, two other members who may not be necessarily advocates. the only condition to appoint persons as members is that they should be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, including public affairs and administration. it further provides one of such two members, one shall be a woman. section 12 of the act of 1986 provides the manner in which the complaint shall be made and section 13 provides the procedure to be followed by the district forum on receipt of a complaint from consumer involving value upto rs. one lac (after amendment in 1993 - rs. five lacs). inter-alia, it provides that the district forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the code of civil procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the matter specified therein [sub-section (4)]. sub-section (4) of section 13 reads thus : '13. procedure on receipt of complaint. - (4) for purposes of this section, the district forum shall have the samepowers as are vested in a civil court under the code of civil procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,namely:-- (i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witnessand examining the witness on oath; (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other materialobject producible as evidence; (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi)any other matter which may be prescribed.' section 13 basically deals with the procedure before the district forum on receipt of a complaint if it relates to any goods and services. sub-section (5) of section 13 provides that the proceeding before the district forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the indian penal code (45 of 1860), and the district forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195, and chapter xxvi of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). sub-section 5 and 6 of section 13 reads thus: '13(5). every proceeding before the district forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the indian penal code (45 of 1860), and the district forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195, and chapter xxvi of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) where the complainant is a consumer referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2, the provisions of rule 8 of order i of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the district forum thereon.' thus, it would be seen from sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 13 that the consumer fora, though it have trappings of civil court, are not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the code of civil procedure. as indicted earlier, statements of objects and reasons as well as preamble also clearly indicate that new fora constituted under the act of 1986 are quasi-judicial machineries and/or authorities and not, courts. section 14 of the act of 1986 provides that after the proceedings are conducted under section 13, if the district forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects, specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the things specified therein. section 30 confers on the central government and the state government as well the power to make rules. section 30 reads thus: '30. power to make rules. -- (1) the central government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 2, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, sub-section (2) of section 5, clause (vi) of sub-section (4) of section 13, section 19, sub-section (2) of section 20 and section 22 of this act. (2) the state government may, by notification make rules for carrying out the provisions contained in clause (b) of sub-section (2) and subsection (4) of section 7, sub-section (3) of section 10, clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13, sub-section (3) of section 14, section 15 and sub-section (2) of section 16.' there is no dispute that the rules framed by the central government and the state government are almost identical and there is no noticeable distinguishing factor between the rules framed by them which could be relevant for our purpose. 16. the petitioners in the present writ petitions have claimed their right to engage authorised agents and right of authorised agents to have audience before the consumer forum on the basis of rules framed by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 7, sub-section (3) of section 10, clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13, sub-section (3) of section 14, section 15 and sub-section (2) of section 16 of the act of 1986. clause (b) of rule 2 of rules of 2000 defines 'agent' which means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the state commission or district forum. sub-rule (7) of rule 4 which may be relevant for the determination of the issue raised in the present writ petitions reads thus: '4. place of sitting and other matters relating to district forum -- (7) if during the proceedings conducted under section 13, district forum fixes a date for hearing of the parties, it shall be obligatory on the complainant and opposite party (defendant) or its authorised agent to appear before the district forum on such date of hearing or any other date to which hearing could be adjourned. where the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the district forum on such day, the district forum may in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit. where the opposite party (defendant) or its authorised agent fails to appear on the day of hearing, the district forum, may decide the complaint ex-parte.' sub-rule (7) of rule 8 is similar to sub-rule (7) of rule 4. rules 4 and 8 independently deal with matters relating to district fora and state commission respectively. rule 9 provides procedure for hearing appeals. sub-rules (1) and (6) of rule 9 read thus: '9. procedure, for hearing appeal. -- (1) memorandum shall be presented by the appellant or his authorised agent to the state commission in person or sent by the registered post addressed to the commission. (6) on the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing may be adjourned, it shall be obligatory for the parties or their authorized agents to appear before the state commission. if appellant or his authorised agent fails to appear on such date, the state commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the case. if respondent or his authorised agents fails to appear on such date, the state commission shall proceed ex-parte and shall decide the appeal ex-parte on merits of the case.' the petitioners claim the aforestated right on the basis of the aforesaid provisions of the rule of 2000. 17. in so far as the advocates act, 1961 is concerned for the present controversy, we are mainly concerned with chapter iv which contains of sections 29 to 34, section 30 admittedly has not been brought into force so far. the relevant sections 29, 32 and 33 of the advocates act, 1961 read thus : '29. advocates to be the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law. -- subject to the provisions of this act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates. 32. power of court to permit appearances in particular cases. -- not withstanding anything contained in this chapter, any court, authority or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate/under this act, to appear before it or him in any particular case. 33. advocates alone entitled to practise. -- except as otherwise provided in this act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this act.' section 30 though it has not been brought into force to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners made in rejoinder, it would be advantageous to reproduce section 30 also which reads as under : '30. right of advocates to practise. -- subject to the provisions of this act, every advocate whose name is entered in the state roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this act extends - (i) in all courts including the supreme court; (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise.' section 45 of the act provides penalty for persons illegally practising in courts and before other authorities which reads thus : '45. penalty for persons illegally practicing in courts and before other authorities. -- any person who practises in any court or before any authority or person, in or before whom he is not entitled to practice under the provisions of this act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.' the advocates act, thus, prohibits any person other than advocate to practiceprofession of law in any court or before any authority or person except asotherwise provided in this act or in any other law for the time being in force.similarly, any court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled asan advocate under this act, to appear before it or him in any particular casenotwithstanding anything contained in chapter iv. this would mean that personwho is not an advocate can appear before any court or authority after obtainingtheir permission.18. we would now like to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right is conferred on authorised agents to address the court and the said right flows from the rules of 2000 framed by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the act of 1986. there cannot be any dispute that the rules framed under the statute is law and the rules shall have binding force as long as they are not declared inconsistent or ultra vires the act under which they are framed or for that matter any other law for the time being in force or the constitution of india. as of today, the rules of 2000 hold the field and they are binding on the parties. 19. sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 are identical which provide that on the date/dates of hearing of the parties fixed by the district forum/state commission, it is obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or its authorised agent 'to appear' before the district forum/state commission. it further provides that if the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the district forum on such date/dates of hearing, the district forum may in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit and if the opposite party or its authorised agent fails to appear on the date/dates of hearing, the district forum may decide the complaint exparte. it would be seen that it is obligatory on the parties or their authorised agents to appear before the district forum/state commission. 20. the term 'appearance' is explained aptly by benson, j., in seely v evans (1838) 19 wendell 459 (referred to in sanjiva row's the advocates act and the legal practitioners act' 5th edition at page 95) thus : 'the word must always be understood in reference to the particular subject matter to which it relates and the purpose or end to be answered by the appearance has an important bearing in determining what is sufficient to constitute appearance in particular case.' the expression 'to appear' used in sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 must be understood accordingly. unless the phrase 'to appear' appearing in the aforesaid rules is given wider interpretation to include the right to act, appear and plead, the appearance contemplated in the rules may be ineffective arid purpose of appearance through authorised agent may be frustrated. sub-rule (7) contemplates appearance of the parties and their authorised agents on the date/dates of hearing and non-appearance on such date may entail dismissal of complaint in default or an ex-parte order or decision on merits, as the case may be. significantly neither the act nor the rules speak about right of advocates enrolled under the provisions of the advocates act for the parties before the consumer forum. however, undoubtedly, the rights of advocates 'to appear' even before the consumer forum, state commission or national commission flow from the statute, viz. advocates act and an advocate cannot be deprived of such right, though section 30 of advocates act has not come into force yet is still regulated by section 14 of bar councils act, 1926. the party before the consumer forum/state commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate. if the party before the consumer forum/state commission does not engage an advocate, it has to appear before the consumer forum on date/dates of hearing either in person or through its authorised agents. if the party or authorised agent fails to appear, the consumer forum/state commission is empowered to either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit and in the absence of opposite party or its authorised agent decide the complaint ex parte. if the aggrieved complainant has launched complaint without assistance of anyone - lawyer or non-lawyer, then no difficulty arises. but where the aggrieved complainant or opposite party is represented through authorised agent, unless such authorised representative is able to participate in the proceedings meaningfully, the appearance of a party through authorised representative is of no avail. the act of 1986 is a special piece of legislation for the better protection of the interests of consumers. in district fora, state commission and the national commission, extensive participation is given to non-legal or non-judicial persons to be members of the district fora, state commission or national commission. the act has been enacted to give succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers quickly with nil or no expense. the forum created under the act of 1986 is uninhabited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of court-civil or criminal. complaint need not necessarily be filed by the consumer himself; any recognised consumer's association can espouse his cause. where a large of consumers have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. even the central government or state government can act on his/their behalf. mere physical presence, in our view, is not contemplated under sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 and such restrictive meaning shall not be consistent with the objectives of the act of 1986. wider meaning must be given to the expression 'to appear' in reference to the language of sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8. 'the right to appear', therefore includes right of addressing the court, examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc. if we accept the submission of mr. singhvi that 'to appear' mean only physical presence before the consumer forum for the purposes of filing complaint, appeal, or reply on behalf of the party, it would create a very strange situation before the consumer forum/state commission. if an authorised agent alone appears on the date/dates of hearing, neither the hearing will proceed further nor the consumer forum will be able to either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit or decide it ex parte. consider situation like this; section 12 of the act of 1986 permits the aggrieved consumer to file complaint through recognised consumer association. in the complaint, consumer association appears through its office bearer as its recognised agent. does the law i.e. act of 1986 and rules of 2000 compel such complainant-association who is espousing the cause of consumer, engagement of legal practitioner to address the consumer forum. answer is simple no. once the complaint is filed by aggrieved consumer through recognised consumer association, the authorised agent appearing for such recognised consumer association is expected to take the complaint to logical conclusion by full participation in the complaint proceedings which may include addressing the forum, examining and cross-examining the witnesses etc. observance of principles of natural justice alone is sufficient in rendering justice to consumers. the consumer fora are expected and rather required to avoid the strict observance of the procedural laws. it must not be overlooked that in complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. in view of this, we have no hesitation in giving wider and comprehensive meaning to the expression 'to appear' appearing in rule 4(7) and 8(7) of the rules of 2000 to include addressing the court, examining and cross-examining witnesses etc. we are of the considered view in the light of statutory provisions like section 2(1)(b)(ii) and section 12 of the act of 1986 and rules 4(7) and 8(7) of rules of 2000 that right of audience inheres in favour of authorised agents of the parties to the proceedings before district consumer forum and state commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of advocates act. 21. mr. singhvi, learned senior counsel for the state bar council placed heavy reliance on the decision of this court in the case of aswin shambhuprasad patel and ors. (supra). the ratio laid down in this judgment of the bombay high court was thereafter reiterated in the case of oil and natural gas commission v. offshore enterprises inc., : air1993bom217 and also in the case of smt. saraswati v. tulsi ram seth and ors., : air1971delhi110 . this court in the case of aswin shambhuprasad patel and ors. (supra), while considering the provisions of order iii, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure in paras 2 and 3 held thus: '2. ..... .. it is to be noted that this rule merely deals with an appearance,application or act in or to any court and such an appearance, application or act may be done (1) by the party in person (2) by his recognised agent, and (3) by a pleader, it should also be noted that this rule does not apply where a law for the time being in force otherwise expressly provides. therefore it would be competent for a law for the time being in force to provide in respect of recognised agents and pleaders differently from what is provided under order iii, rule 1. then rule 2 defines recognised agents and under clause (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties, are considered as recognised agents under order iii, rule 2(a), has been named by our high court and the amended rule requires that a recognised agent must hold a general power-of-attorney in order that he should be entitled to act under order iii. an exception is made in the case of an attorney of the high court or an advocate in whose case a general power-of-attorney is not necessary, but a special power of attorney would do. (3) the contention put forward by mr. bengeri before me is that 'pleading' is included in the expression 'appearance, application or act in or to any court.' in my opinion, it is clear that 'pleading' would not be included in any of these expressions. the right of audience in court, the right to address the court, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, are all pans of pleading with which order iii does not deal at all. it deals with restricted class of acts in connection with the litigation in court and it is with regard to that restricted class of act that order iii permits recognised agents to be appointed.........'. there cannot be any dispute over the proposition laid down by this court in the case of aswin shambhuprasad patel and others (supra). however, as observed earlier, the expression 'to appear' or 'appearance' must be understood in reference to a particular subject matter to which it relates. this court in the case of aswin shambhuprasad patel interpreted the expression 'appearance with reference to order iii, rule 1 in the code of civil procedure while dealing with a civil revision application. we are afraid, the meaning given to the expression 'appearance' in the judgment of aswin shambhuprasad patel cannot be applied to proceedings before the consumer forum which is not a court under the ordinary civil law. the provisions of the civil procedure code, except for the limited purpose as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 30 are not applicable to the district consumer forum/state commission. the proceedings before such consumer forum cannot be permitted to be formalised like proceedings before civil court. in construing an expression occurring in a particular act or rules, one has to bear in mind the scheme of the act and the rules framed thereunder and the purpose for which enactment was brought into existence. it is sometimes dangerous to construe the language of one act having regard to the construction placed by the court on the language of another enactment. in view thereof, the decisions of this court in the cases of aswin shambhuprasad patel, oil and natural gas commission and smt. saraswati (supra) relied upon by mr. singhvi would not be of much help. 22. mr. singhvi, while interpreting the expression 'to appear' also invited our attention to the definition of 'agent' as defined under clause (b) of section 2 and submitted that an authorised agent is only allowed to file complaint, appeal or reply on behalf of the party before, the state commission or district forum. he further submitted that in view of definition of 'agent', wider meaning cannot be given to the expression 'to appear' in sub-section (7) of rules 4 and 8. we find it difficult to agree with mr. singhvi. the word 'present' is synonym of 'represent' and we are of the view that it cannot be given concise and restrictive meaning to 'only file'. a person authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the state commission or district forum would, in our opinion, means to represent the party before the consumer forum which would include participation in the proceedings at all stages necessary for obtaining appropriate order from such forum. 23. mr. singhvi also placed heavy reliance on the decision of harishankar rastogi v. girdhari sharma and anr., : 1978crilj778 and contended that a private person who is not an advocate by profession cannot, as of right, claim to argue before the consumer forum on the basis of sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 of the rules of 2000. mr. singhvi placed reliance on para 4 of the report which reads thus : '4. having regard to this conspectus of considerations i hold that a private person, who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into court and claim to argue for a party. he must get the prior permission of the court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. it is open to the court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. in fact, the court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it half-way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. the antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. in the present case i have noticed the petitioner and his friend who is to represent him, come together with mutual confidence. the party somehow has not shown sufficient confidence in advocates he has come by. this bodes ill for him. i should have suspected the association of the private person as having sinister implications of exploitation of a guideless party but suspicion by itself should not be the basis of a conclusion. therefore, i think it right to give the party, who appears to be unable to represent his own case, an opportunity to present his grievance through his friend. that friend, judging by the note prepared and put in, seems to be familiar with law, although quacks can prove fatal friends. i grant the petitioner permission to be represented by a private person as prayed for, with the condition that if this latter proves unworthy, the permission will be withdrawn.' 24. observations and the ratio laid down in the case of harishankar rastogi (supra) would not have any application in the present case. firstly, the apex court was considering an application of a person who was seeking permission to be represented by another person who was not an advocate to represent him before the apex court. secondly, case in hand arises out of social beneficial oriented legislation enacted for better protection of the interest of consumers. thirdly, the consumer fora are quasi judicial authority and not a court and fourthly the code of civil procedure is not applicable except for a limited purpose reflected in sub-section (4) of section 13 of the act of 1986. it is thus clear that the decision of the apex court in the case of harishankar rastogi (supra) would not help the bar councils. 25. it is now well settled position of law that the right conferred on advocate under the provisions of the advocates act is a statutory right and not a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution. a person who is not an advocate cannot practise law. any person other than party to the proceedings or advocate cannot claim right of audience before the court, tribunal or authority unless it is provided by law or such person is specifically permitted by such court, tribunal or authority. this in sum and substance is the scheme of sections 29, 32 and 33 of the advocates act, 1961 and section 14 of bar councils act, 1926 which is still operating as chapter iv of advocates act, 1961 has not fully come in operation and section 14 of bar council's act, 1926 cannot be said to have been repealed. 26. mr. singhvi placed heavy reliance on the provisions of advocates act, 1961, particularly sections 29, 32 and 33 thereof. section 29 provides for unified bar for the whole of india. with effect from the date this section has come into force, there is only one recognised class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law viz. the advocates. the practice of law by advocates is subject to the provisions of indian advocates act. though section 30 of the advocates act, 1961 has not come into force yet section 14 of indian bar council act, 1946 which corresponds to section 30 is still operating and as per this provision every advocate entered in the state roll is entitled to practices in all courts and before all authorities and persons throughout the territories. right to practice is not absolute right but is subject to other provisions of the act. under section 32, a person who is not enrolled as an advocate, though, cannot practise law, yet, it does not prevent such person from appearing in court in a particular case with the permission of the court. in other words, section 32 provides that any court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled as an advocate to appear before it or him in a particular case. section 33 makes the provision that except as otherwise provided in the advocates act, 1961 or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall be entitled to practise in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under the act. it would be, thus, seen that a person who is not enrolled as advocate can appear before the authority or person if so provided by law. 27. the contention of mr. singhvi and mr. jamdar that permission to authorised agents to address the district forum/state commission shall result in creating a class of authorised agents to practise law cannot be accepted as by permitting the authorized agents representing parties to the proceedings before the district forum/state commission, such authorised agents cannot be said to practise law. it would be advantageous here to consider in this connection the judgment of the division bench of this court in perfect paper and steel converters private ltd. and ors. v. the bombay national general workers union ors. 1989 mh.l.j. 518 = 1989 (1) clr 492. of the report, the division bench of this court through shri p.b. sawant, j., as he then was, observed thus - '7. shri bhatkal who appeared for appellant no. 1 has confined this appeal only to the agitation of the right of appellant no. 1-employer to appoint any person of his choice to represent himself before the industrial court. therefore the only question that we are called upon to answer is whether a party whether employer or employee has a right to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself/itself before the industrial court. the question before us is not whether any person has a right to, practice as a labour adviser or labour practitioner, etc. in fact, the law does not, recognise any such class of persons. it has become necessary to state this at a very outset because it will help avoid a good deal of confusion and unnecessary controversy. the right to be represented by a person of one's choice is different from the right to practise as labour adviser. the former is the right of the party and the latter the right of the practitioner. we are concerned with the former and not the latter. 13. these provisions have also to be read in the context of the fundamental right of a person to be represented before any authority through a person of his choice. it is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) which means right to effective speech and expression. this right is restricted only by the provisions of sub-clause (2) of the said article which states that the right does not prevent the state from making any law, imposing reasonable restrictions on its exercise in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, definition or incitement to an offence. surely, when a person claims representation before the industrial court through another person or his agent, none of the aforesaid restrictive considerations mentioned in sub-clause (2) will come into operation. for this reason as well, therefore, the right of a party to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself cannot be denied, and should not be deemed to have been denied by any enactment, lightly.' in para 15 of the report, the division bench observed thus -'15. it was then contended by shri deshmukh on behalf of the maharashtra bar council that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. hence if as in the present case, appellant no. 1 is allowed to appoint appellant no. 2 who claims himself to be a labour adviser to represent, it before the industrial court, it would amount to allowing him to practise legal profession in contravention of the provisions of section 33 of the advocates act. hence, he submitted that appellant no. 1 should not be allowed to appoint appellant no. 2 as his agent in any case. according to us, this contention is not well merited for various reasons. in the first place, there is no institution or class of persons as labour advisers or labour practitioners which the law recognises. merely because a person calls himself so he does not become one and get a right to practise as such, nor can any court including the industrial court in the present case, allow him to practise before it as such labour adviser or practitioner. a party may appoint a person to represent himself before any court or authority because of his expertise in the subject concerned or because he is his friend or adviser. when such a person is appointed in any particular case with the permission of the authority concerned, he does not practise the profession and contravene section 33 of the advocate act. section 32 of the said act in fact permits such appearance notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned is not enrolled as an advocate under that act. secondly, the privilege to practise the legal profession which is conferred on the advocate enrolled under the said act who practise as a matter of right and has to be distinguished from the appearance of a person with the permission of the court or the authority as the case may be, every time he is appointed for the purpose. no court, authority or person can refuse to hear an advocate unless of course a special law specifically prohibits his appearance or gives him only permissive right to appear. on the other hand a court, authority or person may refuse permission to appoint a non-advocate to represent party and may also, at any time withdraw the permission already granted. in fact the application to appoint a non-advocate to represent a party must proceed from the party himself. when such application is made, the court, authority or the person as the case may be has to take into consideration several circumstances before granting or refusing the permission. thirdly, and this is a more effective answer in the contention in question. section 33 of the advocates act itself carves out an exception to the general prohibition against legal practice by non-advocates, when a special law permits such practice. section 33 reads as follows; 'except as otherwise provided in this act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this act. in the present case section 33 of the present act has conferred powers upon these industrial court to make regulations regulating its procedure. as has been pointed out earlier, although the right to be represented though a person of one's choice is a substantial right from the point of view of the party concerned, it is a matter pertaining to the procedure before the court, and the court has made regulation 11 in question in exercise of the power to regulate in procedure. hence that regulation is the 'other law' within the meaning of section 33 of the advocates act and is an exception to the generic prohibition contained in the said section. hence the prohibition contained in the section need not prevent the industrial court, from permitting such agents or representatives from appearing before it. it must further be remembered that there is nothing novel in such special provisions. the income-tax act, the sales-tax act, etc, permit persons not enrolled as advocates, to act, appear and plead before the authorities under those enactments, and the relevant provisions in the respective statutes are saved from the general embargo of section 33 of the advocates act because of the said exception contained in the section itself. it is true that income-tax act, etc. have created a special class of practitioners whereas under the present act there is no such separate class of practitioners. but that is not germane to the point which is canvassed before us, viz. that whether there can be a special law permitting non-advocate to be appointed to appear, act and plead. we have already made it clear that since labour advisers are not a class recognised by law they cannot appear or can be allowed to appear in that capacity.' the judgment of this court in perfect paper and steel, of course, relates to the provisions to mrtu and pulp act, 1971 and the regulations made thereunder but is helpful in understanding the right of a party to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself in the proceedings. 28. in l.m. mahurkar v. bar council of maharashtra, the apex court was dealing with the question whether l.m. mahurkar who was a sales tax practitioner in 1949 when the central provinces and berar sales tax act, 1947 was in force in the state of m.p. and, thereafter, he continued his practise in sales tax matters at nagpur under the provisions of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 was entitled to be enrolled as an advocate by the bar council of maharashtra. the apex court considered the provisions of section 24 of the advocates act and section 71 of the bombay sales tax act, 1959 and in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the report observed thus - '5. it clearly appears that a distinction has been drawn between a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner in section 71. both may appear before an authority in connection with sales tax cases. that will not turn a sales tax practitioner into a legal practitioner. even a relative or an employee of an assessee may appear on his behalf before a sales tax authority. he does not require to have any special qualification for doing that. if an employee appears regularly for his employer in connection with sales tax cases of his employer before a sales tax authority, he cannot be treated to be a legal practitioner or entitled otherwise to practise the profession of law by virtue of section 71 of the bombay sales tax act. 6. the second category of persons, who are entitled to appear before, sales tax authorities under clause (b) of section 71, are professionally qualified persons. a legal practitioner or chartered accountant or a cost accountant may appear before a sales tax authority on behalf of his client. such appearance by a lawyer or an accountant will be in the course of carrying on his profession of law or accountancy, as the case may be. it cannot be said that an accountant carries on the profession of law when he appears before the sales tax authority, nor can it be said that a lawyer carries on the profession of an accountant when he appears before a sales tax authority. 7. the third category, to which the appellant claims to belong, is the category of sales tax practitioners, who possess the prescribed qualifications. assuming that the appellant, who is stated to be only a matriculate, has acquired the prescribed qualifications and has been included in the list of persons qualified to appear before the sales tax authorities, he cannot be treated as a person entitled to practise either the profession of law or the profession of accountancy. a large number of persons have been permitted to appear before sales tax authorities on behalf of the dealers. the list includes an employee, a relative, a sales tax practitioner and also professionally qualified people like lawyers and accountants. the right to appear before a sales tax authority is not confined to lawyers only. we are unable to uphold the contention that merely because the appellant has been permitted to appear before the sales tax authority, he falls within the category of persons entitled to practise the profession of law by virtue of the provisions of the bombay sales tax act.' the apex court, thus, held that the persons other than lawyers and chartered or cost accountants allowed to practise in the sales tax department cannot be said to run the profession of law. we are of the considered view that in the light of the rule 4(7) and 8(7) of rules of 2000, the objects, nature of proceedings and scheme of act of 1986 and the purpose of appearance on the date of hearing, the agents appearing for the parties to the proceedings before district forum/state commission cannot be said to carry on the profession of law. there are various statutes like income tax act, sales tax act and the monopolies and restricted trade practises act which permit non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities under those acts and those non-advocates appearing for the parties under such acts cannot be said to practise law. like the provisions have been made under the customs act, the income tax act and the monopolies and restricted trade practises act permitting non-advocates to appear, the rules of 2000 framed under act of 1986 permit authorised agents to appear for the parties to the proceedings before district forum/state commission. such appearance of authorised agents cannot be said to be inconsistent with section 33 of advocates act. as a matter of fact the state commission and district forum seems to carry misconception that the authorized agents, if permitted, audience, shall in fact be carrying profession of law and it is because of this misconception that impugned orders came to be passed. 29. it goes without saying that if authorised agent appearing for the party to the proceedings misbehaves or does not behave in sober fashion or exhibits violent behaviour or does not maintain the decency and decorum of the district forum or state commission or interferes with the smooth progress of the case or like reason, it is always open to such district forum or state commission to pass an appropriate order refusing such authorised agent the audience in a given case. 30. we may observe that none of the parties opposing the writ petitions raised during the course of arguments the issue of constitutionality of sub-rule (7) of rules 4 and 8 and therefore, we have not gone into this question and no opinion is expressed by us in that regard.31. we, thus, conclude that a party to the proceeding before the district forum/state commission has right to authorise a person of his choice to represent him and appearance of such agent authorised by the party on the date of hearing before district forum/state commission is not restricted to physical appearance but includes in terms of rule 4(7), 8(7) or 9(6) of rules of 2000 to examine and cross examine the witnesses, address the court and take part in the proceedings as the case may be. any other view may defeat the very objectives for which act of 1986 was enacted. the complainant to the proceeding before district forum/state commission who cannot conduct the case himself shall be compelled to engage the services of legal practitioner when the law makers intended to provide remedy with nil or no expense. our view is also in conformity with the practice so far followed for the last almost fifteen years by the district fora and state commission, but for the impugned orders or such orders recently, enabling the agents authorised by the party to take part in the proceedings. we are also informed that before national commission, the agents authorised by the parties plead on behalf of their respective party. the entire controversy could have been avoided if the act of 1986 and rules of 2000 were clear and did not suffer from lacunae. we expect law makers to take appropriate steps and plug the lacunae and amend the law to be clear and unambiguous. 32. in the result, writ petitions are allowed. the order dated 5th april, 2002 impugned in writ petition no. 1147 of 2002 and the orders dated 25th september, 2001 and 26th november, 2001 passed separately by two members and chairman of the consumer forum respectively and the interim order dated 21st december, 2001 passed by the state commission impugned in writ petition no. 1425 of 2002 are quashed and set aside.33. rule is made absolute accordingly. 34. no costs.

Judgment:

D.B. Bhosale, J.

1. These two writ petitions involve common issue as to whether parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'Consumer Forum') and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'State Commission') are entitled to be represented by authorised agents who are not enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 and such Authorised Agents have the right of audience. The counsel appearing for the parties confined their arguments only on the aforesaid issue and hence we have not gone into the facts and merits of the complaints filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, 'Consumer Forum') by the petitioners.

2. The petitioners in the first writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1147 of 2002), who are advocates by profession, filed complaint bearing No. 428 of 2000 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - tour operators before respondent No. 1-Consumer Forum complaining deficiency in their service. It is the case of the petitioners that after numerous adjournments and at the stage of filing affidavit of evidence, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application dated 22nd September 2001 objecting the appearance of Shri Jahangir Gai who was appearing as authorised agent of the petitioners. The petitioners filed their reply to the said application. The said application was heard by respondent No. 1 and by order dated 5th April, 2002 held that Shri Jahangir Gai, the authorised agent of the petitioners, had no right to plead before the Consumer Forum since he is not enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, 'Advocates Act'). The said application was disposed of by common order dated 5th April 2002, in Complaint Nos. 428 of 2000 and 304 of 2000, which is impugned in the said writ petition.

3. The second writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1425 of 2002) has been filed by original Complainant being petitioner No. 1 and his 'authorised agent' being petitioner No. 2. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that he has filed complaint No. 167 of 1997 oh 17th June 1997 before the Consumer Forum seeking reliefs against respondent No. 1 for the deficiency in their service. Petitioner No. 2 was appearing for petitioner No. 1 as his authorised agent in the said complaint. Respondent No. 1 was being represented by respondent No. 2-Advocate before Consumer Forum. Respondent No. 2 filed an application objecting appearance of petitioner No. 2 for petitioner No. 1 as his agent contending that addressing the Consumer Forum amounts to pleading and only an advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act is vested with that right. The said application was heard by the Consumer Forum consisting of three members. Two members passed an order on 25th September 2001 by which they rejected the application of respondent No. 1 while third member of the Consumer Forum, who was incidently the Chairman, passed dissenting order dated 26th November 2001. The majority judgment was carried in Revision Application No. 150 of 2001 by respondent No. 1 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (for short, State Commission). Along with the revision filed by respondent No. 1, several other revisions, where similar issue was involved, the State Commission stayed the hearing of matters, in which the authorised agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorised agents were injuncted from appearing before the Forum. The petitioners have stated that resultantly hundreds of matters before Consumer Forum where the authorised agents were appearing, have come to standstill. Feeling, aggrieved by the interim order dated 21st December 2001 passed by the State Commission, the petitioners have impugned the said order in second writ petition.

4. Though in the aforesaid writ petitions, the issue involved is common, the difference is that in first writ petition 'the consumer' is before the Court contending that he has a right to engage an 'agent' to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Forum, while in the second writ petition, the authorised agent himself is before the Court contending that he has every right to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Forum as authorised agent of the parties whenever parties so desire.

5. While issuing rule in these writ petitions, since the question of greater importance to the Bar was raised, the notice was issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and a separate notice to the Bar Council of India, in pursuance thereof, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa as well as All India Bar Council appeared in these writ petitions and submitted their written submissions, over and above oral submission made at length by Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the State Bar Council and Mr. Jamdar on behalf of the All India Bar Council.

6. The registrar of the State Commission respondent No. 3 filed affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the second writ petition. The Registrar on the directions of the Chairman of State Commission, brought to our notice its recent judgment dated 12th June 2002 passed in Appeal No. 306 of 2002. In the said judgment the State Commission considered an identical issue and held that an authorised agent, who are not enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates Act and who cannot be subject to any disciplinary action, cannot be allowed to appear before the Consumer Forum/State Commission.

7. In these petitions, the petitioners have claimed the aforesaid right on the basis of Rules 2(b), 4(7), 8(7), 9(1) and 9(6) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 (for short, Rules of 2000), contending that these rules permit a party to appoint an agent to represent him/her before the Consumer Forum/State Commission and since inception of the various Consumer Fora, viz. District Forum, State commission and National Commission authorised agents who are not enrolled advocates, are granted right of audience. It is further contended that the provisions of the Advocates Act would not come in the way of authorised agent to act, appear and plead before the Consumer Forum. According to the petitioners, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act of 1986') is enacted for settlement of consumer disputes and agent representing a party before the Consumer Fora for the settlement of such disputes, could not be equated with a person practicing law and hence such agent is not affected, by the provisions of the Advocates Act. The petitioners in support have raised diverse contentions in the writ petitions which we will be dealing with, to avoid repetition, while considering submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the later part of the judgment.

8. We heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, perused the writ petitions, affidavit filed by the State Commission and annexures thereto and the written submissions filed by the parties. We would like to advert to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties in brief.

9. Ms Rajni Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first writ petition, at the outset, submitted that a party to the dispute before the Consumer Forum has a right to appoint an agent to represent it and the said right is conferred under the Rules of 2000 which are framed by the State of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 30(2) of the Act of 1986. She invited out attention to the provisions of Section 33 of the Advocates Act and submitted that except as otherwise provided in any other law for the time being in force, much less the Act of 1986, a person is entitled to appear even though he is not enrolled as an advocate under the provisions of the Advocates Act and in view thereof a consumer has a right to engage his Agent before Consumer Forum. She specifically invited our attention to the definition of 'agent' under Rule 2(b), and Rules 4(7) and 8(7) and submitted that an authorized agent under these provisions is allowed to appear before the Consumer Forum for and on behalf of consumer and opposite party. Reliance was also placed on the provisions of other Statutes like Income-tax Act, Customs Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 which permit non-advocates to represent parties before the Authorities under those Acts. It was also submitted that the provisions of the Act of 1986 enable not only non-advocate to hear consumer disputes as members of the forum but also enable non-advocate to represent a party before a Consumer Forum by conferring a right of audience on them. Lastly, Ms. Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the Act of 1986 and the Rules of 2000 being later law than the Advocates Act and also being a special law would prevail over the Advocates Act. In support Ms. Iyer placed reliance on the decision in the cases of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, : (1976)IILLJ409SC , Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and Ors. 2001 (3) SCC 71 and Perfect Paper and Steel Converters Private Ltd. and Ors. v. The Bombay National General Workers' Union and Ors. reported in 7989 Mh.L.J. 518 = 1989 (1) CLR 492.

10. Ms. Tavadia, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the second writ petition while adopting the arguments, advertised by Ms Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition, in addition, submitted that the expression 'to appear' used in the Rules does not, mean physical presence of the party concerned but it is for prosecuting the case before Consumer Forum. In other words, appearance of consumer or his authorised agent is for the purpose of taking part in the proceedings and that it includes preparedness to cite evidence and/or to produce documents or to take any other steps for the disposal of the complaint before the Consumer Forum. She further submitted that the expression 'present' as appeared in the definition of 'agent' does not mean 'only filing' but it also includes to present argument, lead evidence, cross examine etc. By using the expression 'to appear' and 'present', authorized agents are taken out of the purview of the Advocates Act. According to Ms Tavadia, appearance of authorised agents before the Consumer Forum by no stretch of imagination could be construed as 'practicing law'. Ms. Tavadia in support of her contention, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Prashant Vagaskar and Ors v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay : AIR2002Bom120 the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L.H. Mahurkar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Anr., : AIR1996SC1602 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Madura Coats Ltd and Anr. v. S.L. Mehendle, Member, Industrial Court and Anr. : 1998(3)BomCR278 .

11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State Commission placed reliance on the affidavit of the Registrar filed in the proceedings and invited our attention to the order of the State Commission dated 12th June 2002 and submitted that an authorised representative who is not enrolled with the State Bar Council under the provisions of the Advocates Act, should not be allowed to appear before the Consumer Forum.

12. Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of the Maharashtra and Goa, on the other hand, submitted that Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 empowers the parties 'to appear' before the State Commission or District Fora on the date/dates of hearing through its authorised agent but that does not mean an authorised agent is empowered to act, appear or plead on behalf of party before the State Commission or District Forums. In other words, according to Mr. Singhvi, an agent is empowered only to present any complaint, appeal or rely on behalf of party to the complaint before the Consumer Fora by physically remaining present on the date/dates of hearing. In support, he invited our attention to Rule (1) of Order III of the Code of Civil procedure and placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Ashwin Shambhuprasad Patel and Ors v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd., : AIR1955Bom262 wherein this Court, while construing the expression 'appearance, application or act' held that it does not include 'pleading'. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc., : AIR1993Bom217 and Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and Anr., AIR 1978 SC 1090 for construing the expression 'right to practice, appear and plead'. Mr. Singhvi also submitted that one who is not an advocate cannot assert his right to appear, act and plead as a matter of right and claim right of audience. In support, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Jaymal Thakore v. Gujarat State Charity Commissioner, : AIR2001Guj279 . Lastly, Mr. Singhvi submitted that the Act of 1986 is absolutely silent as far as right of the parties to engage an authorised representative on their behalf and in view thereof the expression 'to appear' in the Rules cannot be said to have conferred right of audience on an authorised agent before the Forum. Though in written submission, the State Bar Council has challenged the vires of the Rules which, according to the petitioners, confer right of audience, Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel specifically submitted that he is not pressing the said challenge.

13. Mr. Jamdar, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India, adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the State Bar Council and in addition thereto, submitted that in view of Section 3 of the Act of 1986, it would not be correct to say that the provisions of the Act of 1986 will override the Advocates Act. In other words, according to him, the provisions of the Act of 1986 are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, much less the Advocates Act. He further submitted that those who purport to practice law must be qualified in it and must be enrolled with the State Bar Council which is constituted under the provisions of the Advocates Act. In support, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, : AIR1996SC1708 thereto in particular. In the alternative, Mr. Jamdar submitted that assuming a party before the Consumer Forum has a right to appoint a non-advocate to represent him, this privilege cannot be all pervading one and it is always subject to restrictions. He submitted that even if the party is permitted to appoint a non advocate, he cannot appoint a non-advocate who in the opinion of the Consumer Forum, has started practicing profession of law. The Consumer Forum has power to revoke the permission granted even midway during the proceedings and this can be legitimately done if the appointed non-advocate by his cumulative appearances has started practice of law. According to Mr. Jamdar, to determine whether a non-advocate has begun practice of law, it will be within the power and discretion of the Consumer Forum, as it would have had advantage of observing from the dais the appearance of such non advocate. Mr. Jamdar in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. with other connected Appeals (2000) 5 SCC 294 and the decision of this Court in the case of Perfect Paper and Steel Converters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Bombay National Workers Union and Ors. 1984 BCR 30.

14. In rejoinder, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in the first petition, since Ms Rajni Iyer for some personal difficulty could not appear, submitted that in the absence of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, even the advocates who appear before the Consumer Forum, appear as authorized agents. He further submitted that under Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules of 2000 in the absence of complainant and if the complainant has not engaged an advocate, the Forum will have to dismiss the complaint which, according to him, is not contemplated under the said rules. In his submission, Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 makes it obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or their authorised agent to appear before the District Forum on the date of hearing and if they fail to appear on such dates of hearing, the District Forums in its discretion dismiss the complaint for default and/or decide it ex-parte. In other words, the District Forum has no right to dismiss the complaint for default in the absence of complainant if the authorised agent appears before the District Forum. According to Mr. Singh, this shows that the authorised agent is equally competent to appear and plead before the Consumer Forum.

15. To appreciate the controversy involved in these writ petitions, it would be advantageous at this stage to refer to relevant provisions of the Act of 1986, the Rules of 2000 and of the Advocates Act for better appreciation of submissions. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons as well as in the Preamble of the Act of 1986, the new fora set up are referred to as 'quasi-judicial machineries' and as 'authorities' respectively and not as Courts. The Act has created dispute resolution authorities at District, State and National levels called District Fora, State Commission and National Commission.

Section 2 of the Act of 1986 defines 'complainant', 'complaint', 'consumer', 'manufacturer', 'service', 'trader', and 'unfair trade practice'. The scrutiny of these definitions indicate that the legislature has attempted to widen the reach of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, : AIR1994SC787 has construed the provisions of the Act of 1986'in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. It is held that the primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment.

The definition of 'complainant' includes a consumer and the definition of consumer is comprehensive expression which extends from a person who buys any commodity to consume either as eatables or otherwise from shop, business, house, Corporation, store, fair price shop to use of private or public service. The definition of consumer is in two parts. The first deals with goods, and other with services. The definition of consumer indicates who can approach Consumer Forum as complainant - not necessarily aggrieved consumer but also recognised consumer organisation may launch complaint. The definitions of 'manufacturer' and 'service' would indicate against whom the complaint would lie in the event of defects in the goods or deficiency in the service. It is true that the Act does not define the expression 'agent' or 'authorised agent' However, the intention of the legislature will have to be gathered on the basis of comprehensive reading of the Act as well as rules framed thereunder.

Section 3 of the Act of 1986 provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Meaning thereby, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act shall not override the earlier enactments. The provisions of Sections 10, 16 and 20 of the Act of 1986 deal with the composition of District Forum, State Commission and National Commission which consist of District Judge, Judge of the High Court and Judge of the Supreme Court respectively and, in addition thereto, two other members who may not be necessarily advocates. The only condition to appoint persons as members is that they should be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge or experience of, or have shown capacity in dealing with, problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, including public affairs and administration. It further provides one of such two members, one shall be a woman.

Section 12 of the Act of 1986 provides the manner in which the complaint shall be made and Section 13 provides the procedure to be followed by the District Forum on receipt of a complaint from consumer involving value upto Rs. one lac (after amendment in 1993 - Rs. Five Lacs). Inter-alia, it provides that the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the matter specified therein [Sub-section (4)]. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 reads thus :

'13. Procedure on receipt of complaint. -

(4) For purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the samepowers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters,namely:--

(i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witnessand examining the witness on oath;

(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other materialobject producible as evidence;

(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi)any other matter which may be prescribed.'

Section 13 basically deals with the procedure before the District Forum on receipt of a complaint if it relates to any goods and services. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 provides that the proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Section 195, and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). Sub-section 5 and 6 of Section 13 reads thus:

'13(5). Every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Section 195, and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, the provisions of Rule 8 of Order I of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference to a complaint or the order of the District Forum thereon.'

Thus, it would be seen from Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 13 that the Consumer Fora, though it have trappings of civil court, are not a civil court within the meaning of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. As indicted earlier, Statements of Objects and Reasons as well as preamble also clearly indicate that new Fora constituted under the Act of 1986 are quasi-judicial machineries and/or authorities and not, Courts. Section 14 of the Act of 1986 provides that after the proceedings are conducted under Section 13, if the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects, specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the things specified therein.

Section 30 confers on the Central Government and the State Government as well the power to make rules. Section 30 reads thus:

'30. Power to make rules. -- (1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4, Sub-section (2) of Section 5, Clause (vi) of Sub-section (4) of Section 13, Section 19, Sub-section (2) of Section 20 and Section 22 of this Act.

(2) The State Government may, by notification make rules for carrying out the provisions contained in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) and subsection (4) of Section 7, Sub-section (3) of Section 10, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13, Sub-section (3) of Section 14, Section 15 and Sub-section (2) of Section 16.'

There is no dispute that the rules framed by the Central Government and the State Government are almost identical and there is no noticeable distinguishing factor between the rules framed by them which could be relevant for our purpose.

16. The petitioners in the present writ petitions have claimed their right to engage authorised agents and right of authorised agents to have audience before the Consumer Forum on the basis of rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 7, Sub-section (3) of Section 10, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13, Sub-section (3) of Section 14, Section 15 and Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act of 1986. Clause (b) of Rule 2 of Rules of 2000 defines 'agent' which means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or District Forum. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 4 which may be relevant for the determination of the issue raised in the present writ petitions reads thus:

'4. Place of sitting and other matters relating to District Forum -- (7) If during the proceedings conducted under Section 13, District Forum fixes a date for hearing of the parties, it shall be obligatory on the complainant and opposite party (defendant) or its authorised agent to appear before the District Forum on such date of hearing or any other date to which hearing could be adjourned. Where the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the District Forum on such day, the District Forum may in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit. Where the opposite party (defendant) or its authorised agent fails to appear on the day of hearing, the District Forum, may decide the complaint ex-parte.'

Sub-rule (7) of Rule 8 is similar to Sub-rule (7) of Rule 4. Rules 4 and 8 independently deal with matters relating to District Fora and State commission respectively. Rule 9 provides procedure for hearing appeals. Sub-rules (1) and (6) of Rule 9 read thus:

'9. Procedure, for hearing appeal. -- (1) Memorandum shall be presented by the appellant or his authorised agent to the State Commission in person or sent by the registered post addressed to the Commission.

(6) On the date of hearing or any other day to which hearing may be adjourned, it shall be obligatory for the parties or their authorized agents to appear before the State Commission. If appellant or his authorised agent fails to appear on such date, the State Commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the case. If respondent or his authorised agents fails to appear on such date, the State commission shall proceed ex-parte and shall decide the appeal ex-parte on merits of the case.'

The petitioners claim the aforestated right on the basis of the aforesaid provisions of the Rule of 2000.

17. In so far as the Advocates Act, 1961 is concerned for the present controversy, we are mainly concerned with Chapter IV which contains of Sections 29 to 34, Section 30 admittedly has not been brought into force so far. The relevant Sections 29, 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read thus :

'29. Advocates to be the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law. -- Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates.

32. Power of court to permit appearances in particular cases. -- Not withstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate/under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular case.

33. Advocates alone entitled to practise. -- Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act.'

Section 30 though it has not been brought into force to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners made in rejoinder, it would be advantageous to reproduce Section 30 also which reads as under :

'30. Right of advocates to practise. -- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends -

(i) in all courts including the Supreme Court;

(ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and

(iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise.'

Section 45 of the Act provides penalty for persons illegally practising in courts and before other authorities which reads thus :

'45. Penalty for persons illegally practicing in courts and before other authorities. -- Any person who practises in any court or before any authority or person, in or before whom he is not entitled to practice under the provisions of this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.'

The Advocates Act, thus, prohibits any person other than Advocate to practiceprofession of law in any Court or before any authority or person except asotherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force.Similarly, any court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled asan advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular casenotwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IV. This would mean that personwho is not an advocate can appear before any Court or authority after obtainingtheir permission.

18. We would now like to consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right is conferred on authorised agents to address the Court and the said right flows from the Rules of 2000 framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act of 1986. There cannot be any dispute that the rules framed under the statute is law and the rules shall have binding force as long as they are not declared inconsistent or ultra vires the Act under which they are framed or for that matter any other law for the time being in force or the Constitution of India. As of today, the Rules of 2000 hold the field and they are binding on the parties.

19. Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 are identical which provide that on the date/dates of hearing of the parties fixed by the District Forum/State Commission, it is obligatory on the complainant and opposite party or its authorised agent 'to appear' before the District Forum/State Commission. It further provides that if the complainant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the District Forum on such date/dates of hearing, the District Forum may in its discretion either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit and if the opposite party or its authorised agent fails to appear on the date/dates of hearing, the District Forum may decide the complaint exparte. It would be seen that it is obligatory on the parties or their authorised agents to appear before the District Forum/State Commission.

20. The term 'appearance' is explained aptly by Benson, J., in Seely V Evans (1838) 19 Wendell 459 (Referred to in Sanjiva Row's The Advocates Act and The Legal Practitioners Act' 5th Edition at Page 95) thus : 'The word must always be understood in reference to the particular subject matter to which it relates and the purpose or end to be answered by the appearance has an important bearing in determining what is sufficient to constitute appearance in particular case.' The expression 'to appear' used in Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 must be understood accordingly. Unless the phrase 'to appear' appearing in the aforesaid Rules is given wider interpretation to include the right to act, appear and plead, the appearance contemplated in the Rules may be ineffective arid purpose of appearance through authorised agent may be frustrated. Sub-rule (7) contemplates appearance of the parties and their authorised agents on the date/dates of hearing and non-appearance on such date may entail dismissal of complaint in default or an ex-parte order or decision on merits, as the case may be. Significantly neither the Act nor the Rules speak about right of advocates enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates Act for the parties before the Consumer Forum. However, undoubtedly, the rights of advocates 'to appear' even before the Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission flow from the statute, viz. Advocates Act and an advocate cannot be deprived of such right, though Section 30 of Advocates Act has not come into force yet is still regulated by Section 14 of Bar Councils Act, 1926.

The party before the Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate. If the party before the Consumer Forum/State Commission does not engage an advocate, it has to appear before the Consumer Forum on date/dates of hearing either in person or through its authorised agents. If the party or authorised agent fails to appear, the Consumer Forum/State Commission is empowered to either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit and in the absence of opposite party or its authorised agent decide the complaint ex parte. If the aggrieved complainant has launched complaint without assistance of anyone - lawyer or non-lawyer, then no difficulty arises. But where the aggrieved complainant or opposite party is represented through authorised agent, unless such authorised representative is able to participate in the proceedings meaningfully, the appearance of a party through authorised representative is of no avail.

The Act of 1986 is a special piece of legislation for the better protection of the interests of consumers. In District Fora, State Commission and the National Commission, extensive participation is given to non-legal or non-judicial persons to be members of the District Fora, State Commission or National Commission. The Act has been enacted to give succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers quickly with nil or no expense. The Forum created under the Act of 1986 is uninhabited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of court-civil or criminal. Complaint need not necessarily be filed by the consumer himself; any recognised consumer's association can espouse his cause. Where a large of consumers have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even the Central Government or State Government can act on his/their behalf. Mere physical presence, in our view, is not contemplated under Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 and such restrictive meaning shall not be consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986. Wider meaning must be given to the expression 'to appear' in reference to the language of Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8. 'The right to appear', therefore includes right of addressing the Court, examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions etc.

If we accept the submission of Mr. Singhvi that 'to appear' mean only physical presence before the Consumer Forum for the purposes of filing complaint, appeal, or reply on behalf of the party, it would create a very strange situation before the Consumer Forum/State Commission. If an authorised agent alone appears on the date/dates of hearing, neither the hearing will proceed further nor the consumer forum will be able to either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit or decide it ex parte. Consider situation like this; Section 12 of the Act of 1986 permits the aggrieved consumer to file complaint through recognised consumer association. In the complaint, consumer association appears through its office bearer as its recognised agent. Does the law i.e. Act of 1986 and Rules of 2000 compel such complainant-association who is espousing the cause of consumer, engagement of legal practitioner to address the Consumer Forum. Answer is simple no. Once the complaint is filed by aggrieved consumer through recognised consumer association, the authorised agent appearing for such recognised consumer association is expected to take the complaint to logical conclusion by full participation in the complaint proceedings which may include addressing the Forum, examining and cross-examining the witnesses etc. Observance of principles of natural justice alone is sufficient in rendering justice to consumers.

The Consumer Fora are expected and rather required to avoid the strict observance of the procedural laws. It must not be overlooked that in complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.

In view of this, we have no hesitation in giving wider and comprehensive meaning to the expression 'to appear' appearing in Rule 4(7) and 8(7) of the Rules of 2000 to include addressing the Court, examining and cross-examining witnesses etc. We are of the considered view in the light of statutory provisions like Section 2(1)(b)(ii) and Section 12 of the Act of 1986 and Rules 4(7) and 8(7) of Rules of 2000 that right of audience inheres in favour of authorised agents of the parties to the proceedings before District Consumer Forum and State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of Advocates Act.

21. Mr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel and Ors. (supra). The ratio laid down in this judgment of the Bombay High Court was thereafter reiterated in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc., : AIR1993Bom217 and also in the case of Smt. Saraswati v. Tulsi Ram Seth and Ors., : AIR1971Delhi110 . This Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel and Ors. (supra), while considering the provisions of Order III, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in paras 2 and 3 held thus:

'2. ..... .. It is to be noted that this rule merely deals with an appearance,application or act in or to any Court and such an appearance, application or act may be done (1) by the party in person (2) by his recognised agent, and (3) by a pleader, it should also be noted that this rule does not apply where a law for the time being in force otherwise expressly provides. Therefore it would be competent for a law for the time being in force to provide in respect of recognised agents and pleaders differently from what is provided under Order III, Rule 1. Then Rule 2 defines recognised agents and under Clause (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties, are considered as recognised agents under Order III, Rule 2(a), has been named by our High Court and the amended rule requires that a recognised agent must hold a general power-of-attorney in order that he should be entitled to act under Order III. An exception is made in the case of an attorney of the High Court or an advocate in whose case a general power-of-attorney is not necessary, but a special power of attorney would do.

(3) The contention put forward by Mr. Bengeri before me is that 'pleading' is included in the expression 'appearance, application or act in or to any Court.' In my opinion, it is clear that 'pleading' would not be included in any of these expressions. The right of audience in Court, the right to address the court, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, are all pans of pleading with which Order III does not deal at all. It deals with restricted class of acts in connection with the litigation in Court and it is with regard to that restricted class of act that Order III permits recognised agents to be appointed.........'.

There cannot be any dispute over the proposition laid down by this Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel and others (supra). However, as observed earlier, the expression 'to appear' or 'appearance' must be understood in reference to a particular subject matter to which it relates. This Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel interpreted the expression 'appearance with reference to Order III, Rule 1 in the Code of Civil Procedure while dealing with a Civil Revision Application. We are afraid, the meaning given to the expression 'appearance' in the judgment of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel cannot be applied to proceedings before the Consumer Forum which is not a Court under the ordinary civil law. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, except for the limited purpose as contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 30 are not applicable to the District Consumer Forum/State Commission. The proceedings before such Consumer Forum cannot be permitted to be formalised like proceedings before Civil Court. In construing an expression occurring in a particular Act or Rules, one has to bear in mind the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the purpose for which enactment was brought into existence. It is sometimes dangerous to construe the language of one Act having regard to the construction placed by the Court on the language of another enactment. In view thereof, the decisions of this Court in the cases of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Smt. Saraswati (supra) relied upon by Mr. Singhvi would not be of much help.

22. Mr. Singhvi, while interpreting the expression 'to appear' also invited our attention to the definition of 'agent' as defined under Clause (b) of Section 2 and submitted that an authorised agent is only allowed to file complaint, appeal or reply on behalf of the party before, the State Commission or District Forum. He further submitted that in view of definition of 'agent', wider meaning cannot be given to the expression 'to appear' in Sub-section (7) of Rules 4 and 8. We find it difficult to agree with Mr. Singhvi. The word 'present' is synonym of 'represent' and we are of the view that it cannot be given concise and restrictive meaning to 'only file'. A person authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or District Forum would, in our opinion, means to represent the party before the Consumer Forum which would include participation in the proceedings at all stages necessary for obtaining appropriate order from such Forum.

23. Mr. Singhvi also placed heavy reliance on the decision of Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and Anr., : 1978CriLJ778 and contended that a private person who is not an advocate by profession cannot, as of right, claim to argue before the Consumer Forum on the basis of Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules of 2000. Mr. Singhvi placed reliance on para 4 of the report which reads thus :

'4. Having regard to this conspectus of considerations I hold that a private person, who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the Court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it half-way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. In the present case I have noticed the petitioner and his friend who is to represent him, come together with mutual confidence. The party somehow has not shown sufficient confidence in advocates he has come by. This bodes ill for him. I should have suspected the association of the private person as having sinister implications of exploitation of a guideless party but suspicion by itself should not be the basis of a conclusion. Therefore, I think it right to give the party, who appears to be unable to represent his own case, an opportunity to present his grievance through his friend. That friend, judging by the note prepared and put in, seems to be familiar with law, although quacks can prove fatal friends. I grant the petitioner permission to be represented by a private person as prayed for, with the condition that if this latter proves unworthy, the permission will be withdrawn.'

24. Observations and the ratio laid down in the case of Harishankar Rastogi (supra) would not have any application in the present case. Firstly, the Apex Court was considering an application of a person who was seeking permission to be represented by another person who was not an advocate to represent him before the Apex Court. Secondly, case in hand arises out of social beneficial oriented legislation enacted for better protection of the interest of consumers. Thirdly, the Consumer Fora are quasi judicial authority and not a Court and fourthly the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable except for a limited purpose reflected in Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act of 1986. It is thus clear that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harishankar Rastogi (supra) would not help the Bar Councils.

25. It is now well settled position of law that the right conferred on advocate under the provisions of the Advocates Act is a statutory right and not a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. A person who is not an advocate cannot practise law. Any person other than party to the proceedings or advocate cannot claim right of audience before the Court, tribunal or authority unless it is provided by law or such person is specifically permitted by such court, tribunal or authority. This in sum and substance is the scheme of Sections 29, 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 14 of Bar Councils Act, 1926 which is still operating as Chapter IV of Advocates Act, 1961 has not fully come in operation and Section 14 of Bar Council's Act, 1926 cannot be said to have been repealed.

26. Mr. Singhvi placed heavy reliance on the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Sections 29, 32 and 33 thereof. Section 29 provides for unified bar for the whole of India. With effect from the date this section has come into force, there is only one recognised class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law viz. the Advocates. The practice of law by advocates is subject to the provisions of Indian Advocates Act. Though Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has not come into force yet Section 14 of Indian Bar Council Act, 1946 which corresponds to Section 30 is still operating and as per this provision every advocate entered in the State roll is entitled to practices in all courts and before all authorities and persons throughout the territories. Right to practice is not absolute right but is subject to other provisions of the Act. Under Section 32, a person who is not enrolled as an advocate, though, cannot practise law, yet, it does not prevent such person from appearing in court in a particular case with the permission of the court. In other words, Section 32 provides that any court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled as an advocate to appear before it or him in a particular case. Section 33 makes the provision that except as otherwise provided in the Advocates Act, 1961 or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall be entitled to practise in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under the Act. It would be, thus, seen that a person who is not enrolled as advocate can appear before the authority or person if so provided by law.

27. The contention of Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Jamdar that permission to authorised agents to address the District Forum/State Commission shall result in creating a class of authorised agents to practise law cannot be accepted as by permitting the authorized agents representing parties to the proceedings before the District Forum/State Commission, such authorised agents cannot be said to practise law. It would be advantageous here to consider in this connection the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Perfect Paper and Steel Converters Private Ltd. and Ors. v. The Bombay National General Workers Union Ors. 1989 Mh.L.J. 518 = 1989 (1) CLR 492. of the report, the Division Bench of this court through Shri P.B. Sawant, J., as he then was, observed thus -

'7. Shri Bhatkal who appeared for Appellant No. 1 has confined this appeal only to the agitation of the right of Appellant No. 1-employer to appoint any person of his choice to represent himself before the Industrial Court. Therefore the only question that we are called upon to answer is whether a party whether employer or employee has a right to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself/itself before the Industrial Court. The question before us is not whether any person has a right to, practice as a Labour Adviser or Labour Practitioner, etc. In fact, the law does not, recognise any such class of persons. It has become necessary to state this at a very outset because it will help avoid a good deal of confusion and unnecessary controversy. The right to be represented by a person of one's choice is different from the right to practise as Labour Adviser. The former is the right of the party and the latter the right of the practitioner. We are concerned with the former and not the latter.

13. These provisions have also to be read in the context of the fundamental right of a person to be represented before any authority through a person of his choice. It is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) which means right to effective speech and expression. This right is restricted only by the provisions of Sub-clause (2) of the said Article which states that the right does not prevent the State from making any law, imposing reasonable restrictions on its exercise in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of the country, security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, definition or incitement to an offence. Surely, when a person claims representation before the Industrial Court through another person or his agent, none of the aforesaid restrictive considerations mentioned in Sub-clause (2) will come into operation. For this reason as well, therefore, the right of a party to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself cannot be denied, and should not be deemed to have been denied by any enactment, lightly.'

In para 15 of the report, the Division Bench observed thus -

'15. It was then contended by Shri Deshmukh on behalf of the Maharashtra Bar Council that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Hence if as in the present case, Appellant No. 1 is allowed to appoint Appellant No. 2 who claims himself to be a labour adviser to represent, it before the Industrial Court, it would amount to allowing him to practise legal profession in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Advocates Act. Hence, he submitted that Appellant No. 1 should not be allowed to appoint Appellant No. 2 as his agent in any case. According to us, this contention is not well merited for various reasons. In the first place, there is no institution or class of persons as labour advisers or labour practitioners which the law recognises. Merely because a person calls himself so he does not become one and get a right to practise as such, nor can any Court including the Industrial Court in the present case, allow him to practise before it as such labour adviser or practitioner. A party may appoint a person to represent himself before any Court or authority because of his expertise in the subject concerned or because he is his friend or adviser. When such a person is appointed in any particular case with the permission of the authority concerned, he does not practise the profession and contravene Section 33 of the Advocate Act. Section 32 of the said Act in fact permits such appearance notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned is not enrolled as an advocate under that Act. Secondly, the privilege to practise the legal profession which is conferred on the advocate enrolled under the said Act who practise as a matter of right and has to be distinguished from the appearance of a person with the permission of the Court or the authority as the case may be, every time he is appointed for the purpose. No Court, authority or person can refuse to hear an Advocate unless of course a special law specifically prohibits his appearance or gives him only permissive right to appear. On the other hand a Court, authority or person may refuse permission to appoint a non-Advocate to represent party and may also, at any time withdraw the permission already granted. In fact the application to appoint a non-Advocate to represent a party must proceed from the party himself. When such application is made, the Court, authority or the person as the case may be has to take into consideration several circumstances before granting or refusing the permission. Thirdly, and this is a more effective answer in the contention in question. Section 33 of the Advocates Act itself carves out an exception to the general prohibition against legal practice by non-Advocates, when a special law permits such practice. Section 33 reads as follows;

'Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act.

In the present case Section 33 of the present Act has conferred powers upon these Industrial Court to make regulations regulating its procedure. As has been pointed out earlier, although the right to be represented though a person of one's choice is a substantial right from the point of view of the party concerned, it is a matter pertaining to the procedure before the Court, and the Court has made Regulation 11 in question in exercise of the power to regulate in procedure. Hence that Regulation is the 'other law' within the meaning of Section 33 of the Advocates Act and is an exception to the generic prohibition contained in the said section. Hence the prohibition contained in the section need not prevent the Industrial Court, from permitting such agents or representatives from appearing before it. It must further be remembered that there is nothing novel in such special provisions. The Income-tax Act, the Sales-tax Act, etc, permit persons not enrolled as Advocates, to act, appear and plead before the authorities under those enactments, and the relevant provisions in the respective statutes are saved from the general embargo of Section 33 of the Advocates Act because of the said exception contained in the section itself. It is true that Income-tax Act, etc. have created a special class of practitioners whereas under the present Act there is no such separate class of practitioners. But that is not germane to the point which is canvassed before us, viz. that whether there can be a special law permitting non-Advocate to be appointed to appear, act and plead. We have already made it clear that since labour advisers are not a class recognised by law they cannot appear or can be allowed to appear in that capacity.'

The Judgment of this Court in Perfect Paper and Steel, of course, relates to the provisions to MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and the Regulations made thereunder but is helpful in understanding the right of a party to appoint a person of his choice to represent himself in the proceedings.

28. In L.M. Mahurkar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, the Apex Court was dealing with the question whether L.M. Mahurkar who was a Sales Tax practitioner in 1949 when the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was in force in the State of M.P. and, thereafter, he continued his practise in sales tax matters at Nagpur under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was entitled to be enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra. The Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 24 of the Advocates Act and Section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the report observed thus -

'5. It clearly appears that a distinction has been drawn between a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner in Section 71. Both may appear before an authority in connection with sales tax cases. That will not turn a sales tax practitioner into a legal practitioner. Even a relative or an employee of an assessee may appear on his behalf before a sales tax authority. He does not require to have any special qualification for doing that. If an employee appears regularly for his employer in connection with sales tax cases of his employer before a sales tax authority, he cannot be treated to be a legal practitioner or entitled otherwise to practise the profession of law by virtue of Section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

6. The second category of persons, who are entitled to appear before, sales tax authorities under Clause (b) of Section 71, are professionally qualified persons. A legal practitioner or chartered accountant or a cost accountant may appear before a sales tax authority on behalf of his client. Such appearance by a lawyer or an accountant will be in the course of carrying on his profession of law or accountancy, as the case may be. It cannot be said that an accountant carries on the profession of law when he appears before the sales tax authority, nor can it be said that a lawyer carries on the profession of an accountant when he appears before a sales tax authority.

7. The third category, to which the appellant claims to belong, is the category of sales tax practitioners, who possess the prescribed qualifications. Assuming that the appellant, who is stated to be only a matriculate, has acquired the prescribed qualifications and has been included in the list of persons qualified to appear before the sales tax authorities, he cannot be treated as a person entitled to practise either the profession of law or the profession of accountancy. A large number of persons have been permitted to appear before sales tax authorities on behalf of the dealers. The list includes an employee, a relative, a sales tax practitioner and also professionally qualified people like lawyers and accountants. The right to appear before a sales tax authority is not confined to lawyers only. We are unable to uphold the contention that merely because the appellant has been permitted to appear before the sales tax authority, he falls within the category of persons entitled to practise the profession of law by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.'

The Apex Court, thus, held that the persons other than lawyers and chartered or cost accountants allowed to practise in the Sales Tax Department cannot be said to run the profession of law. We are of the considered view that in the light of the Rule 4(7) and 8(7) of Rules of 2000, the objects, nature of proceedings and scheme of Act of 1986 and the purpose of appearance on the date of hearing, the agents appearing for the parties to the proceedings before District Forum/State Commission cannot be said to carry on the profession of law. There are various statutes like Income Tax Act, Sales Tax Act and the Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practises Act which permit non-Advocates to represent the parties before the authorities under those Acts and those non-Advocates appearing for the parties under such Acts cannot be said to practise law. Like the provisions have been made under the Customs Act, the Income Tax Act and the Monopolies and Restricted Trade Practises Act permitting non-Advocates to appear, the Rules of 2000 framed under Act of 1986 permit authorised agents to appear for the parties to the proceedings before District Forum/State Commission. Such appearance of authorised agents cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 33 of Advocates Act. As a matter of fact the State Commission and District Forum seems to carry misconception that the authorized agents, if permitted, audience, shall in fact be carrying profession of law and it is because of this misconception that impugned orders came to be passed.

29. It goes without saying that if authorised agent appearing for the party to the proceedings misbehaves or does not behave in sober fashion or exhibits violent behaviour or does not maintain the decency and decorum of the District Forum or State Commission or interferes with the smooth progress of the case or like reason, it is always open to such District Forum or State Commission to pass an appropriate order refusing such authorised agent the audience in a given case.

30. We may observe that none of the parties opposing the writ petitions raised during the course of arguments the issue of constitutionality of Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 and therefore, we have not gone into this question and no opinion is expressed by us in that regard.

31. We, thus, conclude that a party to the proceeding before the District Forum/State Commission has right to authorise a person of his choice to represent him and appearance of such agent authorised by the party on the date of hearing before District Forum/State Commission is not restricted to physical appearance but includes in terms of Rule 4(7), 8(7) or 9(6) of Rules of 2000 to examine and cross examine the witnesses, address the court and take part in the proceedings as the case may be. Any other view may defeat the very objectives for which Act of 1986 was enacted. The complainant to the proceeding before District Forum/State Commission who cannot conduct the case himself shall be compelled to engage the services of legal practitioner when the law makers intended to provide remedy with nil or no expense. Our view is also in conformity with the practice so far followed for the last almost fifteen years by the District Fora and State Commission, but for the impugned orders or such orders recently, enabling the agents authorised by the party to take part in the proceedings. We are also informed that before National Commission, the agents authorised by the parties plead on behalf of their respective party. The entire controversy could have been avoided if the Act of 1986 and Rules of 2000 were clear and did not suffer from lacunae. We expect law makers to take appropriate steps and plug the lacunae and amend the law to be clear and unambiguous.

32. In the result, writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 5th April, 2002 impugned in writ petition No. 1147 of 2002 and the orders dated 25th September, 2001 and 26th November, 2001 passed separately by two members and Chairman of the Consumer Forum respectively and the interim order dated 21st December, 2001 passed by the State Commission impugned in writ petition No. 1425 of 2002 are quashed and set aside.

33. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

34. No costs.