Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 73 (ORI)

Abanti Mallik v. Prakash Pal

2009-01-30

I.M.QUDDUSI, SANJU PANDA

body2009
Judgment I. M. QUDDUSI, J. :- The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the judgment/order dated 16-2-1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa in C.D.C. No. 298 of 1993 and the order dated 8-3-2000 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission confirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa. 2. The brief facts of the case are that opposite parties took admission in the petitioner's institution to take training in Fitter Trade and as required by the institution, they paid certain amounts of money for admission as well as continuance of their study for the course extending over a period of two years and submitted their original matriculation certificate with a hope that they would come out as fitters holding valid certificate, which would enable them to pursue their career. After their admission, the opposite parties found that all the assurance to provide adequate training to the students were false and not possible in the institution for want of infrastructure and instructor /teachers and the required machineries. Thereafter, the opposite parties filed Consumer Dispute Case No. 289 of 1993 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay compensation for loss of three years of their career, the cost of boarding and lodging for two years, the cost of study materials and for the undue mental agony. Vide order dated 16-2-1995, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack directed the petitioner to refund to opposite party No. 1 the amount of money which he had paid at the time of admission with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment and compensation of Rs.20,000/- to be paid within a month failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till payment. The Commission also directed the petitioner to refund to opposite party No.3 Rs. 3,820.00 which he had paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till date of refund together with a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% thereon. 3,820.00 which he had paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till date of refund together with a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 12% thereon. The Commission also further directed the petitioner to return the Matriculation Certificate to opposite party No. 1 within one month from the date of order failing which to pay a further compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12%. 3. Against the said order dated 16-2-95 passed in C.D.C. No. 298/1993 by the State Commission, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed F.A. No. 367 of 1995 and FA No. 381 of 1996 respectively before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the Director of the Institute in question has filed a Revision Petition No. 1311 of 1996 before the National Commission against the order dated 30-5-1996 passed in M.C. No. 14/95 by the State Commission, Orissa. The appeals and the revision were heard together and vide order dated 8-3-2000, the National Commission disposed of the appeals and revision with the following orders : "It is recorded that the High School Certificate Examination of Prakash Pal issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and High School Certificate Examination of Anil Kumar Parija issued by the Board of Secondary E1ucation, Orissa and also the Admit Card of Prakash Pal issued by the State Council for Vocational Training, Orissa for final test of 1994 as well as School Leaving Certificate of Prakash Pal issued by Bhadra High 'School, Bhodar (P.O.), Dist. Puri have been handed over in Court today by the Counsel for the petitioner to Mr.Manmohan Pal, father of Prakash Pal. It is stated by Manmohan Pal that he is authorized to accept and take delivery of these certificates for and on behalf of Prakash Pal. The High School Leaving Certificate of Anil Kumar Parija, issued by the Bhadra High School, Bhodar (P.O.), Dist.-Puri and also the High School Certificate Examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which have been produced before us by the Counsel for petitioner, will be sent to Anil Kumar Parija, C/o. Shri Manmohan Pal, At-Gabasahi, P.O. Bhadrak, Dist. Bhadrak. The High School Leaving Certificate of Anil Kumar Parija, issued by the Bhadra High School, Bhodar (P.O.), Dist.-Puri and also the High School Certificate Examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which have been produced before us by the Counsel for petitioner, will be sent to Anil Kumar Parija, C/o. Shri Manmohan Pal, At-Gabasahi, P.O. Bhadrak, Dist. Bhadrak. Orissa-756100 by Registered Post with Acknowledgment due by the counsel for the petitioner who will file an affidavit to that effect. We have perused the order of the State Commission. No further order need be passed in these cases. The Revision Petition and both the appeals are disposed of above." 4. Against the aforesaid order passed by the National Commission, the petitioner has filed this instant writ petition for a direction that the C.D.C. No. 298 of 1993 be remanded back for fresh adjudication. 5. A bare perusal of the provisions of Article 227(1) of the Constitution of India shows that every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals through out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The National Commission is not sub-ordinate to this Court and also not a tribunal within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction over the National Commission to exercise the powers of superintendence over its judgment. We are not going to consider at this stage whether this Court should interfere in the order passed by the National Commission. New Delhi. The instant case cannot be a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has approached the statutory bodies up to the National Commission. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise, of its power conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. SANJU PANDA, J.:- 6. I agree. Petition dismissed.