State Consumer Commission Not Empowered To Exercise Powers Of Review And Set Aside An Ex-Parte Order: JKL HC Reiterates
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums are not empowered to exercise powers of review and set aside ex parte orders unless a statute empowers them for the same. The observations came from Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Forums are not empowered to exercise powers of review and set aside ex parte orders unless a statute empowers them for the same.
The observations came from Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had questioned an order passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu whereby the complaint, which was dismissed in January 2013, had been restored back.
The moot question that fell for adjudication before the bench was whether the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had the power to review its ex parte order and restore the petition dismissed for non-appearance.
The bench took recourse to the observations of the Supreme Court judgment in Rajeev Hitendra Pathank and others Vs. Achyut Kasinath Karekar and another 2011 and reiterated that the District Forums and State Commission had not been given any powers to set aside ex parte orders and power of review, and the powers which have not been specially given by the Statute, cannot be exercised.
It also took note of the fact that the J&K State Consumer Protection Act, 1987 which governed the proceedings of the complaint before the state Consumer Commission clearly shows that the Commission does not have any power at all to restore the complaint dismissed for non-prosecution.
Taking note of another associated fact mentioned in the impugned order that the same had been passed with the agreement of the counsel for the other side, i.e. petitioner herein, but was being disputed by the petitioner stating that the counsel had never agreed for restoration of the complaint but had requested for adjournment in the matter, the bench observed that the consent of a counsel will not give jurisdiction to the State Commission where it otherwise does not have it.
Accordingly, the bench allowed the petition and the order impugned was set aside.
Case Title : Akona Engineering Private Ltd Vs Pal Construction and another.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 254
Coram: Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta
Counsel For Petitioner : Mr Rahul Pant Sr Adv, Mr Anirudh Sharma