The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the Cooperative Society. In these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the order in pending proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum.
2. It is not clear as to how such a Writ Petition is maintainable. Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, they have three-tier appeal mechanism, namely from the District Forum to the State Consumer Forum and thereafter to the National Consumer Forum.
3. The question as to whether the Cooperative Societies are covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide judgment in Secretary., Thirumurugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 305. In that case, argument was advanced that the Cooperative Societies Act provides for arbitration and arbitration appeal and therefore, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will not apply. That was repealed by the Supreme Court. In paragraphs 12, 18 and 19, it was observed as follows.
"12. As per
Section 3 of the Act, as already stated above, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers better, the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when
Section 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is a clear bar.
18. The decision in Dhulabhai case also does not help the appellant. The present case is not one where the question to be considered is as to the exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court in view of the provisions of Section 90 read with Section 156 of the Act. Provisions of the 1986 Act, as already made clear above, apply in addition to the other provisions available under other enactments. It follows that the remedies available under the 1986 Act for redressal of disputes are in addition to the available remedies under the Act. Under the 1986 Act we have to consider as regards the additional jurisdiction conferred on the forums and not their exclusion. In Dhulabhai case1 consideration was whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded. Propositions (1) and (2) indicate that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the Special Tribunals, the jurisdiction of civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Further, where there is an express bar on the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act are wider. For instance, in addition to granting a specific relief the forums under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering etc. which possibly could not be given under the Act in relation to dispute under Section 90 of the Act. Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under the Act and forums are provided, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the 1986 Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act, reference to which is already made above. When the decision of Dhulabhai case was rendered, the provisions similar to the 1986 Act providing additional remedies to parties were neither available nor considered. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it leads to taking away the additional remedies and forums expressly provided under the 1986 Act, which is not acceptable.
19. The question of conflict of decisions may not arise. If the parties approach both the forums created under the Act and the 1986 Act, as indicated in the case of Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. it is for the forum under the 1986 Act to leave the parties either to proceed or avail the remedies before the other forums, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Even otherwise, very recently, the Supreme Court vide judgment in Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operations Association of India and others reported in 2011(13) Scale 584 dealt with the identical question and in paragraph Nos.17, 24 and 25, it was observed as follows:
"17. It can, thus, be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. However, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathamal vs. Superintendent of Taxes (supra) and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still hold field.
24. What has surprised us is that the High Court has not even referred to
Sections 17 and
19 of the 1986 Act and the law laid down in various judgments of this Court and yet it has declared that the directions given by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and that too by overlooking the availability of statutory remedy of appeal to the respondents.
25. ......
the High Court should not have entertained the Writ Petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution and the miscellaneous petitions filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution ad directed them to avail remedy of appeal under
Section 19 of the 1986 Act."
5. In the light of the above, there is no case made out. All the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, it is without prejudice to the petitioners from availing such remedies open to them under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.