1996 JTR(SC) 1173
1996 AIR(SC) 2664 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3327 ; 1996 2 AllCJ 1304 ; 1996 2 APLJ 45 ; 1996 3 CCC(SC) 237 ; 1996 87 CompCas 919 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 237 ; 1996 4 ICC 570 ; 1996 Supp JT 380 ; 1996 6 Scale 14 ; 1996 5 SCC 477 ; 1996 SCR 279 ; 1996 KHC 1740 ; 1996 6 Supreme 131
1996(6) Supreme 131
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha and S.C. Sen, JJ.
State of Gujarat -Appellant
versus
Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10191 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12085 of 1996)
Decided on 5-8-1996
Cournsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Yashank Adhyaru & Ms. H. Wahi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M. Barot. Sr. Advocate and Ms. H. Khatun, Advocate.
Act Referred :CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.21, S.17, .
A) The Consumer Protection Act provisions referenced in this case establish the jurisdictional framework for adjudication by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, defining the scope of matters legitimately falling within their purview. The analysis under the referred sections focuses on whether a dispute concerning subsidized electricity pricing for a Gram Panchayat's drinking water supply falls within the statutory mandate of these quasi-judicial bodies, emphasizing that jurisdiction is a matter of law to be strictly determined irrespective of the parties involved or the scale of the dispute.
B) Key legal principles include the limitation of adjudicatory authority to specified domains, the non-justiciability of matters outside the forum's mandate, and the appellate obligation to correct jurisdictional overreach irrespective of procedural leniency or public interest considerations.
Facts of the case:
A Gram Panchayat sought subsidy benefits for electricity consumed in supplying drinking water from a bore-well, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in first appeal, upheld the right to the subsidy, citing the short duration and small amount involved.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute did not legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and criticized the lower forum's approach as a failure to exercise jurisdictional discipline.
Issues:
Whether the question of electricity pricing for a Gram Panchayat's drinking water supply legitimately falls within the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums' jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that lack of jurisdiction is jurisdictional and cannot be overridden by subsidiary considerations such as the nature of the party, duration, or amount in dispute, necessitating the dismissal of the claim.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the claim before the State Commission was dismissed without costs.
A) The Consumer Protection Act provisions referenced in this case establish the jurisdictional framework for adjudication by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, defining the scope of matters legitimately falling within their purview. The analysis under the referred sections focuses on whether a dispute concerning subsidized electricity pricing for a Gram Panchayat's drinking water supply falls within the statutory mandate of these quasi-judicial bodies, emphasizing that jurisdiction is a matter of law to be strictly determined irrespective of the parties involved or the scale of the dispute.
B) Key legal principles include the limitation of adjudicatory authority to specified domains, the non-justiciability of matters outside the forum's mandate, and the appellate obligation to correct jurisdictional overreach irrespective of procedural leniency or public interest considerations.
Facts of the case:
A Gram Panchayat sought subsidy benefits for electricity consumed in supplying drinking water from a bore-well, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in first appeal, upheld the right to the subsidy, citing the short duration and small amount involved.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute did not legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and criticized the lower forum's approach as a failure to exercise jurisdictional discipline.
Issues:
Whether the question of electricity pricing for a Gram Panchayat's drinking water supply legitimately falls within the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums' jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that lack of jurisdiction is jurisdictional and cannot be overridden by subsidiary considerations such as the nature of the party, duration, or amount in dispute, necessitating the dismissal of the claim.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the claim before the State Commission was dismissed without costs.
ORDER
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The order under appeal is passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in first appeal against an order of the State Commission.
The order under appeal opens with these words :
"Although there is substantial force in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General, Mr. Thakore, appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the question of pricing does not legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, regard being had to the Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where only a very small period of about 10 months is involved and the party concerned is a Gram Panchayat, which is claiming benefit of subsidised rate of 25 paise per unit in respect of electricity consumed by it for the supply of drinking water to its residents from a bore-well, we are not inclined to interefere with the order passed by the State Commission upholding the right of the panchayat to the benefit of the said subsidy."
3. We find this very difficult to appreciate. If a court does not have jurisdiction, it does not have jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that one of the parties involved is a Gram Panchayat or the period involved is very short or the amount involved is very small. If a court does not have jurisdiction, it is the obligation of the appellate court so to hold and to set aside the order under appeal.
4. Having regard to the fact that the dispute did not "legitimately fall within the purview of adjudication by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Formus", the appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and the claim made by the respondents before the State Commission is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******