# IN RE v. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1091
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-10
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 3 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dharnidhar Jha, Ashok Pal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-re-v-shri-anil-kumar-jindal-others-42331
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Section 19District Consumer Forum whether a
Court?-held-within strict sense of Courtalthough not a Court-but possessing all
trappings like Court-is Court within the
ambit of Section 10 of Contempt Act.

Held: Para-57

In view of the above, we are of the view
that although a District Forum exercising
judicial function under the Consumer
Protection Act is not a Court within the
strict sense of a 'Court' but due to having
all the trappings of a 'Court' is a 'Court'
in the context of Section 10 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Constitution
of
India-Art.227-District
Consumer
Forum-being
Court
within
scope of 5-10 of contempt Act-High
Court can exercise supervisory power.

Held: Para-66

In view of the above we are of the firm
view that a High Court has the power of
superintendence also over the District
Consumer
Forums
and
Commissions
lying within its territorial jurisdiction and
that being so such District Consumer
Forums and Commissions established
under the Consumer Protection Act are
also covered within the ambit and scope
of "courts subordinate to the High Court"
in the context of Section 10 of the
Contempts of Courts Act 1971.
Case Law discussed:
(2009) 9 SCC 221; (2011) 8 SCC 539; (2003)
2 SCC 412; (2010) 11 SCC 1; 1995
Supplementary 3 SCC 81; 1950 Supreme Court
188; (2000)5 SCC 355; 2 SCC 651; AIR 1956
SC 614; AIR 1956 Supreme Court 66; AIR
1956, Supreme Court 153; AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1494; ( 2003) 3 SCC 563; (2011) 10 SCC
316; (2010) 11 SCC 1; (1995) Supplementary
3 SCC 81; (2003) 2 SCC 412; AIR 1981 SC
723: 1981 Cr.L.J. 283

## Text

_Characters 0–39,889 of 42,897. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39889 for what follows._

3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1091
with the conclusion of the Disciplinary
Committee and the reasons given by it,
found that the respondent is guilty of
professional
misconduct
within
the
meaning of Section 21 read with Section
22 of the Act for contravention of
Regulation 32-B of the Regulations in
respect of the charge of non-payment of
stipend
to
the
complainant
and
recommended to this Court that the name
of the respondent be removed from the
register of Members of the Institute for a
period of 15 days.

16. The intendment and object of the
Act is to maintain the standard of the
profession of Chartered Accountant at a
high level and it prescribes certain code of
conduct to the members, which they must
follow.

17. In the facts and circumstances,
as discussed above, we are of the view
that the decision of the Disciplinary
Committee as well as of the Council are
based on material on record. Both the
authorities have taken into consideration
all the aspects and explanations submitted
before it. The conclusions are drawn by a
self-speaking detailed order. We do not
find any illegality or perversity in the
findings of the disciplinary Committee
and the Council. There is no sufficient
reason to interfere with the findings
recorded against the respondent. The
reference is liable to be answered against
the respondent.

18. As the matter is pending since
long, in the circumstances of the case, the
removal of the name of the respondent
from the Register of Members for a
period of five days would meet the ends
of justice.

19. Accordingly, the reference is
answered in favour of the applicant and
against
the
respondent
with
the
modification that the name of the
respondent shall be removed from the
Register of Members for a period of five
days only.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH, J.

Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 3 of
2012

IN RE

 ...Applicant
Versus
Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.G.A
Sri A.B.N.Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.M.Zaidi
Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Section 19District Consumer Forum whether a
Court?-held-within strict sense of Courtalthough not a Court-but possessing all
trappings like Court-is Court within the
ambit of Section 10 of Contempt Act.

Held: Para-57

In view of the above, we are of the view
that although a District Forum exercising
judicial function under the Consumer
Protection Act is not a Court within the
strict sense of a 'Court' but due to having
all the trappings of a 'Court' is a 'Court'
in the context of Section 10 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Constitution
of
India-Art.227-District
Consumer
Forum-being
Court
within
scope of 5-10 of contempt Act-High
Court can exercise supervisory power.

Held: Para-66

In view of the above we are of the firm
view that a High Court has the power of
superintendence also over the District
Consumer
Forums
and
Commissions
lying within its territorial jurisdiction and
that being so such District Consumer
Forums and Commissions established
under the Consumer Protection Act are
also covered within the ambit and scope
of "courts subordinate to the High Court"
in the context of Section 10 of the
Contempts of Courts Act 1971.
Case Law discussed:
(2009) 9 SCC 221; (2011) 8 SCC 539; (2003)
2 SCC 412; (2010) 11 SCC 1; 1995
Supplementary 3 SCC 81; 1950 Supreme Court
188; (2000)5 SCC 355; 2 SCC 651; AIR 1956
SC 614; AIR 1956 Supreme Court 66; AIR
1956, Supreme Court 153; AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1494; ( 2003) 3 SCC 563; (2011) 10 SCC
316; (2010) 11 SCC 1; (1995) Supplementary
3 SCC 81; (2003) 2 SCC 412; AIR 1981 SC
723: 1981 Cr.L.J. 283

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh, J.)

1. A legal preliminary objection has
been raised about non maintainability of the
present contempt proceedings, which have
been initiated against the contemnor an
Advocate, under Section 10 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as "Act") regarding the alleged
contempt committed by him of the District
Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar.

2. We have heard Sri V.M.Zaidi,
learned counsel for the contemnor as also
learned AGA for the State respondent.

3. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the contemnor that Section 10 of
the Act empowers the High Court to punish
only in respect of contempts of courts
subordinate to it and a District Consumer
forum is neither a court nor a court
subordinate to the High Court. As such the
High Court has no jurisdiction to punish a
person of any Act of contempt of Consumer
Forum and the proceedings initiated against
the
contemnor
by
High
Court
are
misconceived. In support of his argument
learned counsel has relied upon Malay
Kumar
Ganguly
Vs.
Sukumar
Mukherjee (2009) 9 SCC 221 and
Ethopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narayan
Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539.

4. On the other hand learned AGA has
argued in support of the jurisdiction being
vested with the High Court to initiate
contempt proceedings even in respect of
contempt committed of a Consumer Forum.
According to him the Consumer Forum has
all the trappings of the Court and as such
under Section 10 of the Act is a Court and
also subordinate to the High Court.

5. Before proceeding any further it
will be necessary to have a look at the
relevant
statutory
provisions
of
the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 of the Act.
Section 2 of the said Act defines Contempt
of Courts.

6. Civil Contempt is defined by its
Section 2(b) as under:-

"2(b) civil contempt " means wilful
disobedience to any judgement, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court ".

While Criminal Contempt is defined in
Section 2(c) as under:-
3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1093

"2(c) criminal contempt " means the
publication (whether by words. spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise) of any matter
or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise,
or lowers or tends to lower the authority of,
any court ; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or

(iii)interferes or tends to interfere with,
or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other
manner ;"

7. Section 10 of the Act, which
empowers
the
High
Court
to
take
cognizance of a contempt in respect of a
Court subordinate to it reads as under:-

"Power of High Court to punish
contempts of subordinate courts- Every
High Court shall have and exercise the
same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in
accordance with the same procedure and
practice, in respect of contempts of courts
subordinate to it as it has and exercises in
respect of contempts of itself :

Provided that no High Court shall take
cognizance of a contempt alleged to have
been committed in respect of a court
subordinate to it where such contempt is an
offence punishable under the Indian Penal
Code.(45 of 1860)".

8. In the background of the aforesaid
statutory provisions and the submissions
made by the learned counsels the questions,
which require our considerations are:

(i) Whether a District Consumer
Forum is a Court, and

(ii) If yes, whether a District Consumer
Forum is subordinate to the High Court.

9. In case the above two questions are
answered in affirmative this Court would
then be well within its jurisdiction to decide
the present contempt proceedings.

10. At the very outset as regards the
first question, it will be pertinent to mention
that the expression "Court" has no where
been defined in the Act. However, certain
decisions of the Supreme Court may be
referred to derive its correct import in which
it has been used in the Act.

11. In State of Karnataka Vs.
Vishwabharathi
House
Building
Cooperative Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412
Supreme
Court took the view that
Consumer Forums are not courts but are
quasi judicial bodies or authorities or
agencies. However, it may be noted that this
decision was given in the context where
competence of the parliament was under
challenge before the Supreme Court on the
ground that parallel Courts cannot be
established by the Parliament, which may
run parallel to Civil Courts.

12. In Malay Kumar Ganguly
(supra) relied upon by the present
contemnor the Supreme Court considering
the nature of proceedings before Consumer
Redressal Forum and Commissions held in
it para 43 as under :-

"Proceedings before the National
Commission
are
although
judicial
proceedings, yet at the same time, it is not a
Civil Court within the meaning of the Code
of Civil Procedure. It may have all the
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
trappings of a Civil Court yet it cannot be
called a Civil Court."

13. In Ethopian Airlines (supra)
also relied upon by the present contemnor in
context
of
Section
86
CPC
while
considering the nature of proceeding before
Consumer
Redressal
Forum
and
Commissions, held in its para 66 as under :-

" In particular CPC specifically refers
to the District Courts, the High Court and
the Supreme Court and makes little if any
reference to other quasi judicial fora like
the Consumer redressal bodies at issue
here".

14. In Union Bank of India Vs.
Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1
a constitutional Bench of the Supreme
Court holding Consumer forum to be a
Statutory Tribunal created under a statute
made an attempt to make a fine distinction
between the tribunals and courts in its para
45 as under :-

"45. Though both courts and tribunals
exercise judicial power and discharge
similar functions, there are certain wellrecognised differences between courts and
tribunals. They are:

(i) Courts are established by the State
and are entrusted with the State's inherent
judicial power for administration of justice
in general. Tribunals are established under
a statute to adjudicate upon disputes arising
under the said statute, or disputes of a
specified nature. Therefore, all courts are
tribunals. But all tribunals are not courts.

(ii) Courts are exclusively manned by
Judges. Tribunals can have a Judge as the
sole member, or can have a combination of
a judicial member and a technical member
who is an 'expert' in the field to which the
tribunal relates. Some highly specialised
fact-finding tribunals may have only
technical members, but they are rare and
are exceptions.

(iii) While courts are governed by
detailed statutory procedural rules, in
particular the Code of Civil Procedure and
the Evidence Act, requiring an elaborate
procedure in decision making, tribunals
generally regulate their own procedure
applying the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure only where it is required, and
without being restricted by the strict rules of
the Evidence Act."

15. It is thus seen that the context in
which the aforementioned decisions of
Vishwa
Bharti
House
Building
Cooperative
Society,
Malay
Kumar
Ganguly, Ethopian Airlines and Madras
Bar Association were rendered by the
Supreme Court, it was considering therein
the question as to whether Consumer Forum
and Commissions could be termed as
'Court' in its strict sense, within the meaning
of Civil Procedure Code.

16. In Canara Bank Vs. Nuclear
Power
Corporation
Ltd.,
1995
Supplementary 3 SCC 81 in its para 26 of
the report observed as under:-

" 26. In our view, the word `court'
must be read in the context in which it is
used in a statute. It is permissible, given the
context, to read it as comprehending the
courts of civil judicature and courts or some
tribunals exercising curial, or judicial
powers."

17. In Bharat Bank Limited Delhi
Vs. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR 1950
Supreme Court 188, a five member Bench
3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1095
of Supreme Court, while dealing with the
question whether an Industrial Tribunal
constituted under the Industrial Tribunal
Disputes Act 1947 was a Court for the
purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution
of India observed that Industrial Tribunal
has all the trappings of the court. To be
more pertinent it was observed in para 7 of
his judgement by Fazal Ali, J. one the of the
members as under:

" Now, there can be no doubt that the
industrial tribunal has, to use a well known
expression 'all the trappings of a court' and
performs functions which cannot but be
regarded as judicial. This is evident from
the rules by which the proceedings before
the tribunal, are regulated. It appears that
the proceeding before it commences on an
application which in many respects is in the
nature of a plaint. It has the same powers as
are vested in a Civil Court under the Code
of Civil Procedure when trying a suit, in
respect of discovery, - inspection, granting
adjournment, reception of evidence taken
on affidavit, enforcing the attendance of
witnesses; compelling the production of
documents, issuing commissions, etc. It is to
be deemed to be a Civil Court within the.
meaning of Ss. 480 and 482, Criminal P.C.
1898. It may admit and call for evidence at
any stage of the proceeding and has the
power to administer oaths. The parties
appearing before it have the right of
examination, cross examination and reexamination and of addressing it after all
evidence has been called. A party may also
be represented by a- legal practitioner with
its permission."

18. In P. Sarthy Vs. S.B.I. (2000)5
SCC 355, the Supreme Court was of the
view that the term 'court' in Section 14 of
the Limitation Act 1963 meant any
authority or tribunal having the trappings of
a Court.

19. In Kihoto Hollohan Vs.
Zachillhu (1992) Supplementary 2 SCC
651, a constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court held that all the tribunals may not be
courts, but all courts are tribunals.

20. In Ram Narayan Vs. Simla
Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd., AIR
1956 SC 614, the Supreme Court held that a
tribunal, which exercised jurisdiction for
executing a decree would be a 'court' for the
purpose of the Banking Companies Act.

21. In Brijnandan Sinha Vs. Jyoti
Narayan, AIR 1956, Supreme Court 66
considering
the
question
whether
a
Commissioner appointed under the Public
Servant ( Enquiries ) Act 1850 was a Court
within the meaning of Section 3 of the
Contempt of Courts Act 1952, which is
forerunner of the present Section 10 of the
Act, it was held by the Supreme Court that
in order to constitute a court in strict sense
of the term, an essential condition is that the
court should have, apart from having some
of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power
to give a decision or a definitive judgement,
which has finality and authoritativeness,
which are the essential tests of a judicial
pronouncement.

22. In Virendra Kumar Satyawadi
Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956, Supreme
Court 153, a Bench consisting of three
other learned Judges of Supreme Court
presided over by Hon'ble B.K.Mukherjea,
Chief Justice, while examining the question
as to whether returning officer deciding on
the vailidity of the nomination papers under
Section 36(2) of the Representation of
People Act, 1951 was a court within the
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
meaning of Section 193 IPC laid down as
under:

" that what distinguishes a Court from
quasi judicial tribunal is that it is charged
with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial
manner and declare the rights of parties in
a definitive judgement. To decide in a
judicial manner involves that the parties are
entitled as a matter of right to be heard in
support of their claim and to adduced
evidence in proof of it. And it also imports
an obligation on the part of the authority to
decide the matter of a consideration of
evidence adduced and in accordance with
law. When a question therefore arises as to
whether an authority created by an Act is a
Court as distinguished by quasi judicial
tribunal, what has to be decided is whether
having regard to the provisions of the Act
possess all the attributed of the Court."

23. In Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha
Vs. Sitamarhi, Central CooperativeBank
Limited, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1494,
the question that arose for consideration
before the Supreme Court was as to whether
the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative
Societies, an authority under the Bihar and
Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 was
a Court for the purposes of Contempt of
Courts Act 1952. In the light of the ratio of
its previous decisions rendered in Bharat
Bank's case, Brijnandan Sinha's case and
Virendra Kumar's case, it was held by the
Supreme Court therein as under:-

"that to determine whether statutory
authority was functioning as a Court, the
provisions of the statute concerned have to
be looked into".

24. After examining the provisions of
the Act and the powers, duties and functions
of the Assistant Registrar therein, the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision of
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha reached to a
conclusion that the Assistant Registrar in
adjudicating upon a dispute rendered under
Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa
Cooperative Societies Act 1935 for all
intents
and
purposes
was
a
Court
discharging the same functions and duties in
the same manner as a Court of law is
expected to do.

25. In K.Shamrao Vs. Assistant
Charity Commissioner ( 2003) 3 SCC
563, the Supreme Court held Assistant
Charity Commissioner appointed under
Section 5 Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 (
as applicable to Karnataka ), to be a 'Court'
for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act
1971.

26.

In
Trans
Mediterranean
Airways Vs. Universal Exports and
another (2011) 10 SCC 316, Apex Court
made a strenuous effort to find out the
meaning of term 'Court' as given in various
renowned dictionaries. Therein it was
observed by the Apex Court that in Oxford
Advance Learner Dictionary (8th Edition) it
has been defined as " the place where legal
trials take place and where crimes, etc, are
judged ". According to Oxford Thesaurus of
English (3rd Edition ) its synonyms are as
under : " Court of Law, Law Court, Bench,
Bar, Court of Justice, Judicature, Tribunal,
Forum, Chancery, Assizes, Courtroom".
The Chamber's Dictionary ( 10th Edition)
has described a court as " a body of person
assembled to decide causes". In Straud's
Judicial Dictionary (5th Edition), the word
court has been described as " a place where
justice is judicially ministered, and is
derived" and is further observed, " but such
a matter involves a judicial act, which may
be brought up on certiorari".
3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1097

27. In the aforesaid decision of Trans
Mediterranean Airways Vs. Universal
Exports and another a question had
cropped up before the Supreme Court as to
whether National Commission under the
Consumer Protection Act was a court. This
question was to be decided by the Supreme
Court in the context of the Carriage Air Act,
1972 and the Warsaw Convention of 1929.
After
a
careful
consideration
of
aforementioned dictionary meanings of the
term ' court' and its earlier decisions
rendered in Union of India Vs. Madras Bar
Association (2010) 11 SCC 1, Bharat Bank
Limited Vs. Employees (supra), Brijendra
Sinha Vs. Jyoti Narayan (supra) and and
Canara
Bank
Vs.
Nuclear
Power
Corporation
of
India
Limited
and
others,(1995) Supplementary 3 SCC 81
the supreme court observed as under :

"The above dictionary meaning and
decision of this Court in the case of Canara
Bank and also the observations of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Madras Bar Association reveal that word
"Court" must be understood in the context
of a body that is constituted in order to
settle disputes and decide rights and
liabilities of the parties before it. "Courts"
are
those
bodies
that
bring
about
resolutions to disputes between persons. As
already mentioned, this Court has held that
the Tribunal and Commissions do not fall
under the definition of 'Court'. However, in
some situations, the word "Court" may be
used in a wide, generic sense and not in a
narrow and pedantic sense, and must, in
those cases, be interpreted thus."

28. In State of Karnataka Vs.
Vishwabharathi
House
Building
Cooperative Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412,
the Supreme Court took the view that by
virtue of Section 25 and Section 27 of the
Consumer Protection Act there is a legal
fiction created in giving tribunals like the
Consumer Forum, the powers of a Court.

29. Taking into account its aforesaid
decision rendered in State of Karnataka Vs.
Vishwabharathi
House
Building
Cooperative Society and several others
decisions, the Supreme Court in Trans
Mediterranean Airways
Vs. Universal
Exports and another (supra) bringing
Consumer
Forums
and
Commissions
established under Consumer Protection Act
(referred to as CP Act) within the sweep
and ambit of 'Court' in context of Carriage
Air Act, 1972 (referred to as CA Act ) and
Warsaw Convention reached to a further
conclusion as under:-

" The use of the word "Court" in Rule
29 of the Second Schedule of the CA Act has
been
borrowed
from
the
Warsaw
Convention. We are of the view that the
word "Court" has not been used in the strict
sense in the Convention as has come to be
in our procedural law. The word "Court"
has been employed to mean a body that
adjudicates a dispute arising under the
provisions of the CP Act. The CP Act gives
the District Forums, State Forums and
National Commission the power to decide
disputes of consumers. The jurisdiction, the
power and procedure of these Forums are
all clearly enumerated by the CP Act.
Though, these Forums decide matters after
following a summary procedure, their main
function is still to decide disputes, which is
the main function and purpose of a Court.
We are of the view that for the purpose of
the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention, the
Consumer Forums can fall within the
meaning of the expression "Court" "

30. In view of the aforesaid decisions,
it thus becomes clear that the word 'court'
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
used in the Act cannot be interpreted in its
narrow and pedantic sense as a Court or
Civil Court in its strict sense but has to be
interpreted in its wide generic sense
providing a greater conspectus to its
meaning. We in the present matter are
therefore not concerned as to whether
Consumer Forum in their precise nature are
courts or quasi judicial bodies or authorities
or agencies but what we are concerned
about is as to whether in the context of
Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971,
they are exercising their main functions as a
Court or in other words are having 'the
trappings of a Court'. In case these forums
are exercising their judicial power akin to
that of a Court, there is no reason not to
treat them a Court in the context of Section
10 of contempt of Courts Act 1971.

31. In order that an authority
exercising a judicial authority, can be
termed to be having 'the trappings of a
Court' following tests must be satisfied by
such authority:-

(i) Nature of power exercised by the
authority. The power entrusted to the
authority must be judicial power of the State
meaning thereby, the authority must be
enjoined to adjudicate between the parties.
There must be a lis between the contesting
parties presented before the authority for
adjudication and decision.

(ii) The source of the power must
emanate from the statute and must not be
based merely on agreement between the
parties. The power must statutorily flow and
must continue to inhere in the authority
subject to the limitation engrafted by the
statute conferring such power.

(iii) The manner of exercise of power
must partake of essential attributes of
'Court'.

(iv) The resultant or end product of the
exercise of such power by the authority
must result in a binding decision between
the parties concluding the lis between the
parties so far as the authority is concerned.
The said decision must be definitive and
must have finality and authoritativeness.

32. In the light of the aforesaid tests
let us now consider the relevant statutory
scheme of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
under which its authorities function.

33. The statement of objects and
reasons of the Consumer Protection Act
1986 enumerates its necessity to provide
better
protection
of
the
interest
of
consumers. The salient feature of the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the CP
Act are as under:

"1. The CP Act aims to protect the
interests of the consumers and provide for
speedy resolutions of their disputes with
regard to defective goods or deficiency of
service. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the CP Act are as under:

The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986
seeks to provide for better protection of the
interests of consumers and for the purpose,
to make provision for the establishment of
Consumer councils and other authorities
for the settlement of consumer disputes and
for matter connected therewith.

2. It further seeks, inter alia, to
promote and protect the rights of consumers
such as -
3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1099

(a) the right to be protected against
marketing of goods which are hazardous to
life and property;

(b) the right to be informed about the
quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard
and price of goods to protect the consumer
against unfair trade practices;

(c) the right to be assured, wherever
possible, access to an authority of goods at
competitive prices;

(d) the right to be heard and to be
assured that consumers interest will receive
due consideration at appropriate forums;

(e) the right to seek redressal against
unfair trade practices or unscrupulous
exploitations of consumers; and

(f) right to consumer education.

 3. These objects are sought to be
promoted and protected by the Consumer
Protection Council to be established at the
Central and State level.

4. To provide speedy and simple
redressal to consumer disputes, a quasijudicial machinery is sought to be set up at
the district, State and Central levels. These
quasi- judicial bodies will observe the
principles of natural justice and have been
empowered to give relief of a specific
nature and to award, wherever appropriate,
compensation to consumers. Penalties for
non- compliance of the orders given by the
quasi-judicial bodies have also been
provided. "

34. The relevant provisions of
Consumer Protection Act that are required
to be noticed for answering the question
before us are Sections 2, 7, 9, 10,11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 24B,
25, 27 and 27A.

35. Section 2 contains definitions
wherein amongst others definition of
complainant, consumer and consumed
disputes have been provided.

36. Section 7 of the said Act
provides a constitution of the State
Consumer Protection Council to promote
and protect within the State, the rights of
the consumers with the objects as quoted
(supra).

37.

Section
9
provides
for
establishment of the consumer dispute
redressal agencies making provision for
establishment of Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum known as District
Forum to be established by the State
Government in each district and also
making
provision
for
a
Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission known as
State
Commission
by
every
State
Government and for making a further
provision for a establishment of a
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission to be established by the
Central Government.

38. Section 10 provides composition
of a District Forum, which is to be headed
by a person who is, or has been, or is
qualified to be a District Judge and
consist of two other members.

39. Section 11 provides pecuniary
jurisdiction of the District Forum.

40. Section 12 provides the manner
in which a complaint has to be made
before the District Forum.
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

41..Section 13 lays down the mode
and manner in which complaint received
by the District Forum are required to be
dealt with. Its Sub-section 3 requires that
every complaint shall be heard as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour
shall be made to decide the complaint
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of notice by opposite party,
where the complaint does not require
analysis or testing of commodities and
within five months where analysis or
testing of commodities are required. Its
Sub-section 3(B), 4 and 5 requires special
attention because of which they are being
reproduced as under:-

"(3B) Where during the pendency of
any proceeding before the District Forum,
it appears to it necessary, it may pass
such interim order as is just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.

(4) For the purposes of this section,
the District Forum shall have the same
powers as are vested in a civil court
under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
while trying a suit in respect of the
following matters, namely:--

(i) the summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any defendant or witness
and examining the witness on oath;

(ii) the discovery and production of
any document or other material object
producible as evidence;

(iii) the reception of evidence on
affidavits;

(iv) the requisitioning of the report of
the concerned analysis or test from the
appropriate laboratory or from any other
relevant source;

(v) issuing of any commission for the
examination of any witness, and

(vi) any other matter which may be
prescribed.

(5) Every proceeding before the
District Forum shall be deemed to be a
judicial proceeding within the meaning of
sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Code
(45 of 1860), and the District Forum shall
be deemed to be a civil court for the
purposes of section 195, and Chapter
XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974). "

42. Section 14 provides for the
directions, which can be issued by the
District Forum arriving at a satisfaction of
the allegations contained in the complaint
about the defects in goods or the
deficiency in service.

43. Section 15 provides for an
appeal from the order made by the
District forum to the State Commission.

44. Section 16 provides for
composition of the State Commission.
According to which it has to be presided
by a person who is, or has been, a Judge
of a High Court appointed by the State
Government. Its also has to consist of two
other members.

45. Section 17 provides for the
jurisdiction of the State Commission
including its pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the complaints.

46. Section 19 provides for an
appeal from a decision of the State
Commission to the National Commission.
3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1101

47. Section 20 deals with the
composition of the National Commission.
It is to be headed by a President, who
would be a person who is, or has been,
Judge
of
the
Supreme
Court
and
appointed by the Central Government in
consultation with the Chief Justice of
India and also having other members not
less then four in number.

48. Section 21 provides for
jurisdiction of the National Commission
including its pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the complaints.

49. Section 23 provides for a limited
appeal to the Supreme Court from an
order made by the National Commission
i.e. when the same is made in exercise of
its original power as conferred by Special
Clause (i) of Clause (A) of Section 21.

50. Section 24 speaks about the
finality of orders. According to it every
order
of
a
District
Forum,
State
Commission or National Commission
shall, if no appeal has been preferred
against such order under the provisions of
the said Act be final.

51. Section 24(B) provides for the
administrative control of the National
Commission
over
all
the
State
Commission in certain matters and about
the
administrative
control
of
State
Commission over all its District for a
within its jurisdiction in those certain
matters.

52. Section 25 provides power of
attachment of the property, awarding of
damages and for issuing a certificate of
any amount due from any person under an
order made by District Forum, State
Commission or the National Commission
through Collector to recover the said
amount in the same manner as arrears of
land revenue.

53. Section 27 provides for
penalties. Its Subsection (1), (2) and (3)
are as under:-

" Penalties. -- (1) Where a trader or
a person against whom a complaint is
made or the complainant fails or omits to
comply with any order made by the
District Forum, the State Commission or
the National Commission, as the case may
be, such trader or person or complainant
shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than one
month but which may extend to three
years, or with fine which shall not be less
than two thousands rupees but which may
extend to ten thousand rupees, or with
both:

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the District
Forum or the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be,
shall have the power of a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class for the trial of
offences under this Act, and on such
conferment of powers, the District Forum
or the State Commission or the National
Commission, as the case may be, on
whom the powers are so conferred, shall
be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of
the first class for the purpose of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) All offences under this Act may
be tried summarily by the District Forum
or the State Commission or the National
Commission, as the case may be."
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

Section
27(A)
provides
appeal
against order passed under Section 27.

54. So far as the first test of nature
of
power
exercised
by
Consumer
Protection authorities is concerned, it is
evident from the aforesaid statutory
scheme that the authorities are to exercise
compulsory judicial power of the State so
as to adjudicate disputes between the
parties i.e. Consumers and traders/
Service Providers. These authorities are
entrusted to determine the lis between the
parties in a judicial manner. As regards
the second test, it is also clear from the
aforesaid scheme that the authority and
power to adjudicate upon the lis between
the parties are entrusted to the authorities
therein by the Act and not by the
appropriate Government. Thus the source
of power to adjudicate so far as these
quasi judicial authorities are concerned is
none other than the statute itself. The
Forums & Commissions are clearly the
creatures of the statute invested with the
power to exercise the judicial power of
the State.

55. As regards the third test the
statutory scheme itself indicates that all
the relevant trappings of a 'court' are
available to the authorities while deciding
a lis between the parties. While Section
13 specifically empowers the authorities
to act like any other Civil Court in respect
of certain matters. Section 25 & 27
provides teeth to the authorities for
getting
their
orders
executed
and
imposing fines in case of default by a
party to the lis. It is also clear from the
said scheme that in order to resolve a lis
the authorities are to follow a judicial
procedure of adjudication which is one of
the essential attributes of a Court.

56. Lastly coming to the fourth test
relating to the resultant or end produce, it
is clear from the provisions of Section 24
that the authorities enjoin finality of their
orders. The orders passed by them
attaining
finality
becomes
binding
between the parties.

57. In view of the above, we are of
the view that although a District Forum
exercising judicial function under the
Consumer Protection Act is not a Court
within the strict sense of a 'Court' but due
to having all the trappings of a 'Court' is a
'Court' in the context of Section 10 of the
Contempt of Courts Act.

58. The first question involved for
our consideration is thus decided in
affirmative.

59. As regards the second question
involved in the matter, it will be
appropriate
to
peruse
the
relevant
provisions contained in Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, which read is as
under :-

" 227. Power of superintendence
over all courts by the High Court.-

(1) Every High Court shall have
superintendence over all courts and
tribunals throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction .

(2)
Without
prejudice
to
the
generality of the foregoing provision, the
High Court may-

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and
prescribe forms for regulating the practice
and proceedings of such courts; and
3 All] IN RE V. Shri Anil Kumar Jindal & others
1103

(c) prescribe forms in which books,
entries and accounts shall be kept by the
officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle
tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff
and all clerks and officers of such courts
and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders
practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms
prescribed or tables settled under clause
(2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent
with the provision of any law for the time
being in force, and shall require the
previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be
deemed to confer on a High Court powers
of superintendence over any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces. "

60. It can thus be noticed that except
for the Court or Tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the Armed
Forced all Courts or Tribunals lying
within the jurisdiction of a High Court
will be covered by the general power of
superintendence of that High Court.

61. In S. K. Sarkar Vs. Vinay
Chandra, AIR 1981 SC 723: 1981
Cr.L.J. 283, a question arose before the
Supreme Court as to whether a Board of
Revenue
functioning
under
the
U.P.Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act was a court subordinate to
the High Court as contemplated by
Section 10 of the Contempts of Courts
Act 1971, whose contempt can be taken
cognizance of by the High Court. The
Supreme Court observed as follows:-

62. "The phrase" courts subordinate
to it" used in Section 10 is wide enough to
include above courts, who are judicially
subordinate to the High Court, even
though administrative control over them
under Article 235 of the Constitution does
not vest in the High Court. Under Article
227 of the Constitution, the High Court
has the power of superintendence over all
courts
and
tribunal
throughout
the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction. The court of Revenue Board,
therefore, in the instant case, is a court
"subordinate to the High Court" within
the contemplation of Section 10 of the
Act."

63. It will also be appropriate to
have a perusal of Rule 4B of the Chapter
III of the Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 as amended upto date under which
allocation of executive and administrative
work has been made by the Allahabad
High Court for its Administrative Judges
each of whom has been assigned the
charge of one or more sessions division
for a period of one year by its Chief
Justice. In the matters listed therein for
Administrative Judges matter no.1 reads
as under:-

"1. Review of judicial work of
Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, District
Consumer Forums and all other Special
Courts and control of their working
including inspection thereof, to record
entries in the character rolls of the officers
posted in the division assigned to the
Administrative Judge."

 (Emphasis supplied by us)

64.