Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, R.B. Upadhyay, filed a consumer complaint against Vodafone Essar Ltd. (respondent No.2) for deficiency of service on 20 March 2008, along with an application for interim relief. On 24 March 2008, the Consumer Redressal Forum passed an interim order restraining the respondent from disconnecting the mobile connection until the decision of the complaint. The petitioner alleged that despite this order, the respondent disconnected the connection, while the respondent claimed that due to an oversight, the outcall facility for one number was barred because of continuous dues, which was rectified on 26 September 2008 upon receiving the order dated 24 September 2008. The order dated 24 September 2008 was passed on the petitioner's application for attachment for failure to comply with the earlier order. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 26 September 2008, on which date the respondent claimed compliance. The State Commission, by its order dated 27 April 2009, set aside the attachment order, holding that it was not illegal on its face and had been complied with. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.564 of 2009 before the High Court, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6 January 2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition (Writ Petition No.1035 of 2009) challenging the same order. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution and no fresh cause of action was shown. The court also observed that the State Commission's order was justified as the attachment order had been complied with.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Attachment for Non-Compliance - The State Commission set aside the attachment order passed by the District Forum under Section 27, holding that the order was not illegal on its face and had been complied with. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the earlier writ petition challenging the same order was dismissed for non-prosecution, and no fresh cause of action was shown. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Commission was justified in setting aside the attachment order passed by the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, after the respondent had complied with the interim order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the earlier writ petition challenging the same order was dismissed for non-prosecution and no fresh cause of action was shown. The State Commission's order setting aside the attachment was justified as the order had been complied with.
Law Points
- Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- Section 27
- Attachment for non-compliance
- Interim order
- Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (05) 26
WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2009
FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.H. BHATIA
Mr.Ram Upadhyay, i/b. Law Competere Consultus for the Petitioner, Mr. P.S. Anand, for Respondent No.2
State Commission for Consumer Disputes, Vodafone Essar Ltd., State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of State Commission setting aside attachment order under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 27 April 2009 of the State Commission setting aside the attachment order.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 disconnected mobile connection despite interim order, and the State Commission set aside the attachment order passed by the District Forum.
Previous Decisions
District Forum passed interim order on 24 March 2008 restraining disconnection; on application for attachment, passed order on 24 September 2008; State Commission set aside that order on 27 April 2009; earlier writ petition (No.564 of 2009) dismissed for non-prosecution on 6 January 2010.
Issues
Whether the State Commission was justified in setting aside the attachment order under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, after compliance with the interim order.
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in light of the dismissal of the earlier writ petition challenging the same order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent disconnected the mobile connection despite the interim order, warranting attachment.
Respondent No.2 argued that the disconnection was due to an oversight and was rectified upon receiving the order, and the attachment order was complied with.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging an order that was already challenged in a previous writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution is not maintainable without showing a fresh cause of action. The State Commission's order setting aside the attachment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was justified as the interim order had been complied with.
Judgment Excerpts
The State Commission by its order dated 27th April, 2009 held that the order cannot be said to be illegal as on the face of it, as it was passed considering breach of the order passed by the Forum below and as the order stands complied with there is no propriety to allow the impugned order to stand and accordingly set aside the order dated 24th September, 2008.
Against that order the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.564 of 2009, which was dismissed on 6th January, 2010 for nonprosecution.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed consumer complaint on 20 March 2008; District Forum passed interim order on 24 March 2008; petitioner filed application for attachment; District Forum passed attachment order on 24 September 2008; State Commission set aside attachment order on 27 April 2009; petitioner filed Writ Petition No.564 of 2009 which was dismissed on 6 January 2010; petitioner filed present Writ Petition No.1035 of 2009 which was dismissed on 4 May 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 27
