# M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-I Asopur v. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Ambedkar Nagar

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 2113
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 1003212 of 2010
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-haji-ramzan-abdul-rauf-cold-storage-unit-i-asopur-v-district-consumer-54561
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner challenged the
order
of
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum-Petitioner
is
a
partnership
firm,
consisting
of
four
partners and is running a cold storage-The
petitioner elected to move to the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for
grievance
u/s
12
of
the
consumer
protection Act,1986, though a parallel
remedy is available u/s 24 of Uttar
Pradesh
Regulation
of
Cold
storage
act,1976-The court held that the High
courts do not act as Courts of appeal
under Article 226-However, the petitioner
may file an appeal against the impugned
order before the State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow within next three weeks.(Para `
to 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

3 All. M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-I Asopur Vs. District Consumer
 Dispute Redressal Forum Ambedkar Nagar
2113

108. Thus, the aforesaid decisions, do
not come to the aid of the original allottees
i.e. the private respondents.

109. Taking a holistic view and in
light of the detailed discussions made in
hereinabove, this court is of the clear view
that the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by
the Cooperative Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh in
Appeal No. 230/2009, 219/2009, 229/2009,
228/2009 arising out of orders dated
14.10.2009
in
Arbitration
Case
No.
21/2006-07,
23/2006-07,
22/2006-07,
20/2006-07, in Appeal No. 71/2009,
72/2009 arising out of orders dated
30.03.2009
in
Arbitration
Case
No.
47/2007-08, 48/2007-08, in Appeal No.
134/2010 arising out of order dated
27.04.2010
in
Arbitration
Case
No.
82/2007-08, In Appeal No. 195/2010
arising out of order dated 9.07.2010 in
Arbitration case No. 19/2006-07, in Appeal
No. 160/2010 arising out of order dated
01.05.2010
in
Arbitration
case
No.
109/2007-08, In Appeal No. 151/2010
arising out of order dated 11.06.2010 in
Arbitration case No. 106/2007-08, In
Appeal No. 73/2010 arising out of order
dated 16.03.2010 in Arbitration case No. 79
/2007-08, In Appeal No. 133/2010 arising
out
of
order
dated
05.05.2010
in
Arbitration case No. 81/2007-08 passed by
the arbitrators concerned are liable to be set
aside.

110. A writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the order passed by the
Co-operative Tribunal in appeals arising
out of arbitration awards passed in
Arbitration Cases under Section 78 of the
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act,
1965, as mentioned hereinabove.

111. Accordingly, all the petitions are
allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs are
made easy.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 2113
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ -C No. 1003212 of 2010

M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage
Unit-I Asopur ...Petitioner
Versus
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum Ambedkar Nagar ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
G.M. Kamil

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Indra Pratap Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner challenged the
order
of
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum-Petitioner
is
a
partnership
firm,
consisting
of
four
partners and is running a cold storage-The
petitioner elected to move to the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for
grievance
u/s
12
of
the
consumer
protection Act,1986, though a parallel
remedy is available u/s 24 of Uttar
Pradesh
Regulation
of
Cold
storage
act,1976-The court held that the High
courts do not act as Courts of appeal
under Article 226-However, the petitioner
may file an appeal against the impugned
order before the State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow within next three weeks.(Para `
to 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. S.D.S Shipping (p) Ltd Vs Jay Container
Services Co.(P) Ltd & ors. (2003) 9 SCC 439
2114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. HC Bom. thru Registrar & anr. Vs Brij Mohan
Gupta (Dead) thru Lrs, & anr. (2003) 2 SCC 390
N.K. Prasad Vs GOI & ors. (2004) 6 SCC 299

3. Inder Prakash Gupta Vs St. of J&K & ors.
(2004) 6 SCC 786

4. BCCI & anr. Vs Netaji Cricket Club & ors.
(2005) 4 SCC 741

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri Mohammad Affan,
Advocate holding brief of Shri G.M.
Kamil, learned counsel for petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the State and
perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order
of
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar dated
30.04.2010 thereby he has allowed the
claim preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 6
with
regard
to
the
payment
of
compensation for the potatoes stored in the
warehouse owned by the petitioner.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a
partnership firm, consisting of four partners
and is running a cold storage unit in the
name & style of M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul
Rauf Cold Storage Unit-II. It has further
been stated that for running the said cold
storage the petitioner had obtained the
necessary licence/permission from the
appropriate authority/Licensing Authority
and is doing the business of storing the
agricultural produces, which are grown by
the local farmers such as potatoes etc. For
the year 2008, the petitioner had stored the
potatoes, which was brought by the local
farmers/respondent nos. 2 to 6 and issued a
receipt of deposit. In the said receipt, the
conditions were mentioned and also the
validity of the said storage. The potatoes
are usually are taken out by the farmers till
the end of September every year but in
September 2008, the rates of potatoes was
very low and therefore, respondent nos. 2
to 6 did not turn up to take the potatoes,
which continued to be stored in the cold
storage owned by the petitioner. It seems
that due to the fact that the potatoes were
stored for longer length of time, the same
were deteriorated and consequently, due to
the damage occurred to the said storage,
respondent nos. 2 to 6 preferred a
complaint
under
Section
12
of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum, Ambedkar Nagar. On being served
a notice the petitioner had appeared before
the District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Ambedkar Nagar but he did not file
any written objections. Thereafter the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum after considering the material on
record and the evidence adduced by
respondent nos. 2 to 6 returned the finding
that respondent nos. 2 to 6 had deposited
their potatoes in the cold storage owned by
the petitioner and also took into account the
published rate and its value and the value
of bags and accordingly valued the potatoes
for all the private respondents. The Forum
concluded that there was negligence on the
part of the petitioner due to which the
potatoes were destroyed and allowed the
claim of the private respondents directing
the petitioner to pay the value of the goods
as per the said judgment. It also imposed
cost arising from mental physical and
financial loss caused and also the cost of
said litigation.

4. In the present petition the
petitioner has submitted that the impugned
order is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as,
for the claim with regard to the destruction
3 All. M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-I Asopur Vs. District Consumer
 Dispute Redressal Forum Ambedkar Nagar
2115
of potatoes, the same issue has to be dealt
under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold
Storage Act, 1976. Section 24 provides for
compensation for loss, destruction etc.,
while according to Section 25, the dispute
regarding the compensation is to be
referred to the Licensing Officer.

5. It is stated that the dispute
pertaining to destruction of potatoes by the
cold storage have to be considered and
decided only as per the provisions of
Section 24 and 25 of the Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976.
When a pointed query has been made to the
petitioner, as to whether despite the fact
that he participated in the said proceedings
before the District Forum, whether he had
raised any objections in this regard or not?
The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
submits
that
though
the
petitioner
participated in the said proceedings but the
said objection was never filed or raised by
him. Though one objection has been
annexed along with the writ petition, which
is undated but certainly the same has not
been filed before the District Forum as the
impugned order clearly states that no
objection was filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for
the State on the other hand has opposed the
writ petition. It has been submitted that
private
respondents
falls
within
the
definition of "consumer" as per the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is
clearly evidence that the petitioner had
been negligent in storage of the potatoes
and consequently, it cannot be said that the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum did not have any jurisdiction to
decide the dispute. He further submits that
it is not a case where there is patent lack of
jurisdiction by the District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum. The issue of
jurisdiction was never agitated before the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum and was never informed about the
special mechanism enacted by the Uttar
Pradesh Regulation Cold Storage Act, 1976
and consequently, the petitioner is estopped
from taking the objection for the first time
in the writ petition.

7. He further submits that once the
petitioner had appeared and participated in
the
proceedings
before
the
District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum then
he would be deemed to have given up his
objection to the applicability of the Uttar
Pradesh Cold Storage Act, 1976 with
regard to the jurisdiction created therein
and has voluntary submitted to the
jurisdiction of the District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum and consequently,
cannot turn around and the challenge the
same in the writ petition.

8. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

9. The only question raised by the
petitioner in the present writ petition is with
regard to the jurisdiction of the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum while
entertaining the dispute pertaining to
destruction of the potatoes in the cold
storage. According to the petitioner, the
said dispute had to be decided as per the
provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh
Regulation Cold Storage Act, 1976 more
specifically under Section 24 and 25, where
there is provision for grant of compensation
by referring the dispute to the Licensing
Officer and further that an appeal has also
been provided under Section 36 against the
order passed by Licensing Officer.

10. In the present case, respondent
nos. 2 to 6 had stored their potatoes in the
2116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cold storage owned by the petitioner and
due to certain defects in the working of the
cold storage, the said potatoes were
damages and consequently, the private
respondent nos. 2 to 6 had claimed
compensation from the petitioner on
account of such damage. Though there is
no doubt that a special mechanism for
redressal of the said dispute has been
provided for under the Uttar Pradesh
Regulation Cold Storage Act, 1976, but on
the other hand, the said dispute also fell
within the ambit of Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, inasmuch as, the private
respondents fell within the definition of
consumer and the dispute raised also fell
within the definition of consumer dispute.
It was open for the petitioner to have raised
a preliminary objection regarding the
jurisdiction of the District Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum at the earliest but
he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
the District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum and participated in the proceedings
therein without raising any objection as to
its jurisdiction.

11. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that once the petitioner
had submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
the District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, and participated in the proceedings,
he cannot turn around and question its
jurisdiction for the first time in the writ
petition. There is no denying the fact that
the petitioner had appeared and participated
in the proceedings before the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and no
such objection was taken by him therein.
On the other hand, it is noticed that the
dispute as raised by the private respondents
no. 2 to 6 fell within the four corners of the
Consumer
Protection
Act,
1986,
consequently, it cannot be said that the
there was patent lack of jurisdiction by the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum while deciding the said dispute.

12. Ordinarily, When more than
one remedy is available to a party in
respect of the same grievance, it is open for
that party to elect or to choose his remedy.
Once he chooses his remedy, all incidents
attached to that remedy must follow.

13. In the present case, the
petitioner has elected to move to the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum for grievance redressal under
Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 , though, a parallel remedy is
available under Section 24 of Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976 claim
compensation by referring the dispute to
the Licensing Officer appointed under the
said act.

14. The Court is of the view that
both the parallel remedies are equally
efficacious and provide similar relief. The
respondents 2 to 6, being the aggrieved
persons, have right to choose the remedy
they prefer to avail and petitioner shall be
bound by the same.

15.

Mere
presence
of
an
alternate/parallel remedy does not render
the relief given by the earlier forum invalid
or without jurisdiction. This principle is in
compliance with demand of public policy
that an aggrieved person has a right to
choose the forum for redressal of his
grievance, when two forums are available
in respect of the same subject matter for the
same relief. In case, if the party is allowed
to select multiple remedies in multiple
forums and courts, there will obviously be
multiplicity of litigation and there is every
chance and likelihood that the judgments
3 All. M/s Haji Ramzan Abdul Rauf Cold Storage Unit-I Asopur Vs. District Consumer
 Dispute Redressal Forum Ambedkar Nagar
2117
and/or orders may also be conflicting with
each other.

16. It is now well-settled that the
High Courts while exercising their equity
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution may not exercise the same in
appropriate cases. While exercising such
jurisdiction, the superior courts in India
even may not strike down a wrong order
only because it would be lawful to do so. A
discretionary relief may be refused to be
extended to the Appellant in a given case
although the Court may find the same to be
justified in law. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P)
Ltd. Vs. Jay Container Services Co. (P)
Ltd and others (2003) 9 SCC 439]. A
similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a large number of
decisions
including
High
Court
of
Judicature at Bombay through Registrar
and Another Vs. Brij Mohan Gupta
(Dead) through Lrs. and another [(2003) 2
SCC 390], N.K. Prasad Vs. Government of
India and others (2004) 6 SCC 299, para
26], Inder Prakash Gupta Vs. State of J &
K and others [(2004) 6 SCC 786, para 42]
and Board of Control For Cricket in India
and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and
others [(2005) 4 SCC 741, para 102].

17. That, however, is not to say
that the jurisdiction will be exercised
whenever there is an error of law. The High
Courts do not act as Courts of appeal under
Article 226. The powers are purely
discretionary and though no limits can be
placed upon that discretion it must be
exercised along recognised lines and not
arbitrarily; and one of the limitations
imposed by the Courts on, themselves is
that they will not exercise jurisdiction in
this class of case unless substantial
injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue.
The High Court cannot be turned into
Courts of appeal or revision to set right
mere errors of law which do not occasion
injustice in a broad and general sense, for,
though
no
legislature
can
impose
limitations on these constitutional powers it
is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in
mind the policy of the legislature to have
disputes about these special rights decided
as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ
petitions should not be lightly entertained
in this class of case.

18. It is in the aforesaid facts, this
Court is of the considered view that where
the authority or tribunal does not lack
patent jurisdiction to entertain the dispute
and when the petitioner participated in the
proceedings without demur or raising any
objection to its jurisdiction, they may not
be permitted to raise for the first time in
writ proceedings. Accordingly, this Court
declines to interfere with the impugned
order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum, Ambedkar Nagar.

19. For the reasons as stated
above, this writ petition is dismissed.

20. Learned counsel for the
petitioner at this stage submits that on
merits he may be granted liberty to assail
the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum, Ambedkar Nagar before the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and counsel for
the respondents do not object to the prayer
made by the petitioner. Considering the fact
that this Court has only looked into the
aspect of the jurisdiction of the District
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum for
entertaining the dispute peculiar fact in the
present case, it is provided that the
petitioner, if so advised, may file an appeal
2118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against
the
impugned
order
dated
30.04.2010
passed
by
the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum,
Ambedkar
Nagar,
before
the
State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow within next three
weeks. In case the appeal is filed, the same
shall be considered on merits in accordance
with law.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 2118
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J..

Writ -C No. 3000027 of 2011

Ganga Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pt. D.R. Shukla, Anurag Narain Srivastava, M.D.
Shukla, Manoj Kr. Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,
Sudhanshu Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Karunakar Srivastava, Mohd. Askam
Khan, Nitin Srivastava

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-manipulation of land recordsLand(gata no.521) was declared surplus in
1964 and later allotted to Kishore in 1970A lekhpal fraudulently inserted his name
into the revenue records without proper
authorization-Kishore's
legal
heir
challenged
the
fraudulent
mutationFraudulent actions by lekhpal were proven
including
misuse
of
his
position
to
manipulate records-It is well settled
proposition of law that a judgment ,
decree or order obtained by playing fraud
on the court is a nullity and non est in the
eye of law-Such a judgment ,decree or
order by the first court or by the Final
court has to be treated as nullity by every
court, superior or inferior- Hence, all
orders based on these fraudulent entries
were declared null and void-the court
restored the land rights to Kishore's legal
heir-cost imposed.

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs Raj Kumar
Rajinder Singh (2019) 14 SCC 449,

2. A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs Govt. of A.P.(2007) 4
SCC 221

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Anurag
Narain
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents and Sri
Mohd.
Aslam
Khan,
learned
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Srivastava,
learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner has challenged:

(i) the order dated 25.07.2011,
passed by the Additional Commissioner,
under Section 27(4) of the Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2006"),
for cancellation of patta of predecessor in
interest of petitioner namely Kishore.

(ii) the order dated 21.06.2011,
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
deleting the name of Kishore on account of
his death without substituting the legal
heirs of Kishore.

(iii) the order dated 16.07.2011,
passed by the Additional Commissioner
whereby the recall application seeking
recall of order dated 21.06.2011 has been
rejected on the ground that registered will