High Court of Judicature at Bombay Considers Civil Revision Application on Jurisdiction under Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Order 1975. Petitioner Contended that Statutory Remedy under Essential Commodities Act Impliedly Bars Civil Suit.

Civil revision against trial court's order holding that civil court has jurisdiction despite the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations & Distribution) Order 1975.

Petitioner (original defendant) sought to have the civil suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction by framing a preliminary issue under Section 9-A CPC.

Plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction and declaration that orders discontinuing her fair price shop business were null and void; defendant filed application under Section 9-A CPC challenging jurisdiction.

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, by order dated 22 December 2005, held that there is no express bar under the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Order 1975 and that the civil court has jurisdiction.

Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred by the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations & Distribution) Order 1975 read with the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, given the statutory remedies provided.

Petitioner argued that the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Order 1975, framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, provides a complete machinery for redressal (Clause 24), and hence civil court jurisdiction is impliedly barred. Reliance was placed on Section 6 of the Act giving overriding effect and on precedents like Harishankar Bagla v. State of M.P. Petitioner contended that the original plaintiff had no legal right to claim natural justice as no licence or authorization was ever issued in her favour; the licence stood in the name of petitioner society since 1982. Respondent No.1 opposed the revision, submitting that there is no specific provision in the Order ousting the civil court's jurisdiction and that the trial court correctly held that no express bar exists.

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations & Distribution) Order 1975? there is no express bar under Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations & Distribution) Order 1975, to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court. the respondent No. 1 was having remedy to approach the State Government under clause 24 of the said order of 1975. As the machinery provided under the said order of 1975, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred.

Regular Civil Suit No. 653 of 2005 was filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1) before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, seeking perpetual injunction and declaration that certain administrative orders were null and void. The petitioner (original defendant no.1) applied under Section 9-A CPC for framing a preliminary issue on jurisdiction. On 19 October 2005, the trial court framed the issue: 'Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations & Distribution) Order 1975?' By order dated 22 December 2005, the trial court held that there is no express bar under the said Order and that the civil court has jurisdiction. The petitioner society filed the present Civil Revision Application No. 10 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging that order. The revision was heard on 18 October 2010 and judgment pronounced on 28 October 2010.

• Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Section 3, Section 6
• Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulations & Distribution) Order 1975: Clause 24
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9-A