Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri A. G. Sawant, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash orders of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 5 August and 9 July 2012 in Execution Application No.10/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.06/2007. The primary challenge was to the constitutional validity of Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides for summary trial of offences under Section 27 for non-compliance with orders of consumer forums. The petitioner contended that since the punishment under Section 27 can exceed two years, the trial should be conducted as a warrant case under the CrPC, which allows the accused to apply for discharge. The absence of such an opportunity, it was argued, violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The respondent, original complainant, argued that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Section 27(3) is a complete code and the summary procedure is not unconstitutional. The court noted that the Consumer Protection Act is a special statute with its own procedural framework, and the legislature intended a speedy remedy. The petition was dismissed, and the criminal application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India - Challenge to summary procedure for trial of offences under Section 27 - Petitioner argued that Section 27(3) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 as it denies opportunity for discharge available in warrant trials under CrPC - Court held that Section 27(3) is a complete code and the procedure is fair and reasonable, not violative of constitutional guarantees - Petition dismissed (Paras 2-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is unconstitutional for providing summary trial for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, thereby contravening Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court held that Section 27(3) is a complete code and the summary procedure is not violative of Articles 14 and 21. The criminal application was also disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act
- 1986 is a complete code
- summary procedure under Section 27(3) is valid
- no violation of Articles 14 and 21
- alternate remedy of appeal available
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 135
Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2012 with Criminal Application No. 99 of 2013
S. C. Dharmadhikari, S. B. Shukre
Mr. S. P. Kadam for petitioner, Mr. Sandeep S. Jinsiwale for Respondent No.1, Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for State
Shri Sanjay D. Berde, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and seeking quashing of orders passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration that Section 27(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is unconstitutional and invalid, and to quash orders dated 5 August and 9 July 2012 in Execution Application No.10/2011.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that Section 27(3) providing summary trial for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as it denies opportunity for discharge available in warrant trials under CrPC.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed orders on 5 August and 9 July 2012 in Execution Application No.10/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.06/2007.
Issues
Whether Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of alternate remedy of appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 27(3) is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 as it provides summary trial for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, denying the accused the opportunity to apply for discharge as in warrant trials under CrPC.
Respondent argued that the issue is settled by Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete code providing for summary trial of offences under Section 27. The procedure is fair and reasonable and does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Consumer Protection Act is a special statute with its own procedural framework, and the legislature intended a speedy remedy.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete code and the summary procedure is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Consumer Protection Act is a special statute with its own procedural framework, and the legislature intended a speedy remedy.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC challenging orders of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 5 August and 9 July 2012 in Execution Application No.10/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.06/2007. The petition was heard along with Criminal Application No.99 of 2013. The court dismissed the petition on 18 July 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 27, Section 27(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
- Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 21, Article 226
