Judgment 1. TWO issues arise for determination in this writ application. The first issue which is off general import is whether a single member can discharge the Functions of the District Forum which under the provisions of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (referred to as the Act) is required to be composed of three members. The second issue relates to the particular facts of this case viz., whether the District Forum had acted in consonance with the provisions of the act. 2. THE facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners number I and 2 are the owners of premises No. 128/20 Hazra Road (referred to as the premises. It is admitted by the petitioners that some of these respondents are tenants under the petitioners. Disputes arose between the petitioners and the respondents No. 5 to 10 as to the supply of filtered water. In fact the respondents No. 5 to 10 had complained to the Executive Engineer. Water Supply (Central), Calcutta Municipal Corporation in this regard. On 22nd January 1991 the respondents no. 5 to 10 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 1 in which they complained that they were not being supplied with water in the premises. The letter further requested the respondent no. 1 " to look into this matter and issue necessary order or orders to our Landlord mr. S. K. Bhattacharjee and Miss Namita Sanyal both of 128/21, Hazra Road, calcutta 700 026 to provide us with the necessary water". 3. THIS letter was treated as a complaint under the Act by the respondent no. 1 and the case was registered as C. D. F. Case No. 879. An order was passed on the same date to the following effect: - "the O. P. is directed to restore water supply within 3 days from receipt of this order Next date for further hearing 12. 2. 91. " This order was signed by the respondent no. 1 as if it were an order of the forum. 4. A Notice to show cause was also issued to the petitioners herein fixing the date of hearing on 12th February 1991. The petitioners showed cause. On 12th March 1991 an order was passed by the respondent no. 1 to the following effect "op is absent. 1 as if it were an order of the forum. 4. A Notice to show cause was also issued to the petitioners herein fixing the date of hearing on 12th February 1991. The petitioners showed cause. On 12th March 1991 an order was passed by the respondent no. 1 to the following effect "op is absent. (The petitioner submits that he can instal the water pump at his own cost if no objection is given by the landlord, o/c Bhowanipore PS is to assist the petitioner in installation of water pump at the site which is agreeable by both the parties. Next date fixed on 16. 4. 91. " The petitioners have Challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent no. 1. It has been contended that the complaint filed by the respondents no 5 to 10 did not come within the purview of the Act nor were the respondents "consumers" within the meaning of the act. It Is also the petitioners case that the Respondent no. I had violated the provisions of the act, in particular Section 13 and that they had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Finally it was contended that the field was covered by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act,1956 and that the right to relief if any was under that Act and not under the 1986 act. 5. TWO supplementary affidavits were filed by the petitioners. In the first supplementary affidavit the petitioners have, in addition to the averments in the writ petition, specifically challenged the competence of the respondent no. 1 to assume jurisdiction and pass orders as the District Forum. In the second supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners the petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 5 Sub-rule 5 of the West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987 (referred to as the Rules) as being contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act. 6. IN the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of some of the private respondents, the facts as noted above have not been disputed. However it is contended that the reliefs provided under the Act were in addition to those granted under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 6. IN the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of some of the private respondents, the facts as noted above have not been disputed. However it is contended that the reliefs provided under the Act were in addition to those granted under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It is also submitted that there was no defect in the constitution of the Forum; and even if there were, this was saved by the provisions of Rule 5 (5) of the Rules. As far as the general issue indicated at the outset is concerned, the matter may be resolved by consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. The preamble to the Act indicates that the object of the Act is to make provisions for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for settlement of Consumers' disputes: This object is sought to be achieved by the establishment, inter alta, of redressal agencies. Three such redressal agencies have ben established under the act viz., (1) District Forum (2) State Commission (3) National Comsumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 7. IN this case the Redressal Agency in question is the District Forum. The district Forum has been defined in Section 2 (h) of the Act as follows : "(h) "district Forum" means a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum established under clause (a) of Section 9". Section 9 (a) of the Act provides as follows : "9. Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. There shall be established for the purpose of this Act, the following agencies, namely : - (a) A Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to be known as the "district Forum' established by the State Government with the prior approval of the Central Government in each district of the State by notification." 8. SECTION 10 of the Act provides for the Composition of the District Forum as under: "10. Composition of the District For urn (1) Each District Forum shall consist of (a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge to be nominated by the State Government, to be its President; (b) a person of eminerice in the field of education, trade or commerce; (c) a lady social worker. Composition of the District For urn (1) Each District Forum shall consist of (a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge to be nominated by the State Government, to be its President; (b) a person of eminerice in the field of education, trade or commerce; (c) a lady social worker. (2) Every member of the District Forum shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for re-appointment : provided that a member may resign his office in writing under his hand addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the category of the member who has resigned. (3) The salary or honorarium and other allowance payable to and the other terms and conditions of service of the members of the District forum shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. It may be noted at this stage that no power has been granted to the State government to prescribe any Rules under this section relating to the composition of the forum under Section 10 (1) of the Act. 9. UNDER Section 13 (4) of the Act, the District Forum has been vested with the powers of a Civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while trying a suit. Under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act every proceeding before the District Forum is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the District For urn is also deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter xxvi of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 10. SECTION 14 (1) of the Act deals with power of the Forum to pass specified orders. This part of the Section would be more apposite to the second issue involved in this case. 10. SECTION 14 (1) of the Act deals with power of the Forum to pass specified orders. This part of the Section would be more apposite to the second issue involved in this case. Section 14 (2) and (3) of the Act are of relevance to this issue and are quoted below : - "(2) Every order made by the District Forum under Sub-section (1)shall be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum. (3) Subject to the fire going provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed by the State government." Under Section 25 of the Act every order made by the District Forum is enforceable in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by the court in a suit pending therein. 11. UNDER Section 27 of the Act non-compliance with an order passed by the district Forum is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. 12. THE last Section which merits consideration in connection with this issue is Section 30 (2) of the Act which reads as follows: "(2) The State Government may, by notification make rules carrying out the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, clause (c)of sub-section (1) of Section 13, sub-section (3) of Section 14, Section 15 and sub-section (2) of Section 16." In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the act, the State Government promulgated the West Bengal Consumer Protection rules 1987 by Notification No. 7601 F. S. /4f-25/82 Pt. II dated 20th July 1987. In laying down the procedure relating to the conduct of the meeting of the District forum its sittings and other matters under Section 14 (3) of the Act. II dated 20th July 1987. In laying down the procedure relating to the conduct of the meeting of the District forum its sittings and other matters under Section 14 (3) of the Act. sub-Rule (5) of Rule 5 provides - "(5) No act or proceedings of the District Forum shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy among its members or any defect in its constitution." In this particular case the District Forum does not have any person who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge under Section 10 (l) (a) nor is there any lady social worker under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Act. The respondent no. 1 has been appointed presumably under Section 10 (l) (b) and is the sole member of the Forum and is discharging the duties of the District forum singly as the President. 13. IN my view, this the respondent no. 1 cannot do. On the basis of the construction of the provisions of the Act the language of Section 10 is mandatory. There is no other provision in the Act has which indicated that the composition of the Forum as prescribed under Section 10 is permissive. Furthermore Section 14 (2) of the Act also envisages that the Forum must be composed of all three members in order to discharge its functions under its act. Hence the reference to the decision of the majority prevailing. 14. UNDER Section 14 (3) of the Act, the State Government was entitled only to formulate Rules relating to the procedure of the meetings of the District forum. The composition of the Forum is not a matter of procedure but a matter of jurisdiction. The State Government under Section 30 (2) of the Act has been empowered to make rules to carry out the provisions inter alia of Section 14 (3)of the Act. Rule 5 (5) in fact derogates from Section 10 (1) of the act. In purporting to prescribe the procedure to be followed at the sittings of the District Forum the State Government has effected substantive provisions. 15. SECONDLY, the policy of the legislature underlying the composition of the district Forum is clear. The intention was to establish the tribunal with the necessary experience and expertise in the fields of law, social welfare, industry and education. 15. SECONDLY, the policy of the legislature underlying the composition of the district Forum is clear. The intention was to establish the tribunal with the necessary experience and expertise in the fields of law, social welfare, industry and education. This was presumably to maintain a balance between the rigours of the law, the needs of society ad pragmatic considerations. 16. IT does not appear to have been the intention of legislature to have allowed this 3-fold approach to the disputes to be disturbed. Had it been the intention of the legislature to have allowed the composition of he District forum to be otherwise than as prescribed under Section 10 (1) of the Act, the savings clause which has been colorfully described as the "ganga Clause" by the Supreme Court in B. K. Srinivasan and Ors. vs. State of. Karnataka and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 658 , 669. would have been incorporated in the Act itself as in srinivasan's Case, as it stands, the Ganga Clause has not been included In this Act. Rule 5 (5) seeks to affect a change in the ostensible policy of the Act. It is well established that a delegated authority cannot correct a change of the policy or the solemnly expressed mandate of the legislature (vide Raj narayan Singh vs. Chairmanl AIR 1954 SC 569 .) 17. THIS is not a case of excessive delegation under the Act as in re : Article 143; Constitution of India reported in AIR 1951 SC 332 . It is a case where the section of the Act prescribing the ambit of the delegatee is good but the delegatee in exercise of that power has gone beyond the power delegated. In B. C. Banerjee vs. Stats of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1970 (2) SCC 467 the Supreme Court has held : - "a rule making authority has no plenary power. It is to act within the limits of the power granted to it. " 18. NEITHER Section 14 (3) nor Section 30 (2) of the Act can be construed as conferring powers on the State legislature to provide for the composition of the district Forum. There is no escape therefore from the conclusion that the composition of the Forum could not be otherwise than that prescribed in the Act itself. The respondent no. 1 could not presume to act as the District Forum alone. There is no escape therefore from the conclusion that the composition of the Forum could not be otherwise than that prescribed in the Act itself. The respondent no. 1 could not presume to act as the District Forum alone. Nor can his actions be validated with reference to Rule 5 (5). I am therefore constrained to hold that Rules 5 (5) is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. It not only effects a change in the policy of the legislature but is expressly contradictory to the mandatory provisions of Section 10. 19. BEFORE this issue is left it may be noted that under Rule 3 (7), and (8), the state Government, in laying down conditions of salaries, honorarium and other allowances payable to the members of the District Forum under Section 10 (3) has sought to provide for a situation where the Forum is constituted by less than the mandatory number. As these two sub-Rules have not been challenged to this writ petition it is not necessary for me to finally express any opinion in this regard except to observe that the said sub-rules appear to suffer from the same vice as Rule 5 (5. 20. THE second issue in this case as formulated at the outset of this judgment must also be decided in favour of the petitioners. Under Section 13 of the Act elaborated provisions have been made for the procedure to be followed by the District Forum upon receipt of the complaint. In this case, the complaint did not relate to any goods but to services. Under Section 13 of the Act elaborated provisions have been made for the procedure to be followed by the District Forum upon receipt of the complaint. In this case, the complaint did not relate to any goods but to services. Without deciding the question whether the services of the landlord to his tenant may be the subject matter of dispute referable under the Act to a redressal agency, Section 13 (2)of the act provides that: "(2) The District Forum shall, if the complaint received by it under section 12 relates to goods in respect of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any services, (a) refer a copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the district Forum; (b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to re-present his case within the time given Toy the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute,- (i) on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complaint and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complaint where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum. (3) No proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in subsections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have riot been complied with." The respondent no. 1 appears to have finally decided the issue exparte without giving the petitioners any opportunity of giving their version of the case after the prescribed period of 30 days. The orders passed by the respondent no. 1 therefore cannot be sustained on the ground that it violates. Section 13 (2)of the Act and also the principles of natural justice. 21. 1 appears to have finally decided the issue exparte without giving the petitioners any opportunity of giving their version of the case after the prescribed period of 30 days. The orders passed by the respondent no. 1 therefore cannot be sustained on the ground that it violates. Section 13 (2)of the Act and also the principles of natural justice. 21. SECONDLY, as already observed, the powers of the District Forum to pass, orders have been restricted to matters covered by Section 14 (1) (a) to (d) of the act These powers are : "(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by its as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the apposite party." 22. THE orders passed as noted above do not fall within any of these categories. In view of my findings on these two issues I do not think it is necessary to go into other points raised in this writ petition which are accordingly left open. 23. THE writ application is accordingly allowed. Rule 5 (5) of the West Bengal consumer Protection Rules 1987 is struck down as being ultra vires the Act. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent no. 1 is permanently restrained from taking any further step in CDF Case No. 879 of 1991. In the facts of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.