# Prem Singh v. The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-10-26
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 9835 of 2015
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-singh-v-the-state-consumer-dispute-redressal-commission-lko-ors-43380
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-custodian
torture-in spite of direction given under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.-no FIR lodgedCourt expressed its serious concern with
direction to lodge FIR and complete
investigation by Officer not below in
rank of Circle Officer-petition allowed.
Held: Para-24
Coupled with this, in the present case,
once such is the factual situation that is
so emerging that prima-facie there has
been custodial violence, then FIR ought

## Text

1240
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advocate or any particular officer from any
office is concerned, that by itself cannot be
considered binding on any other Senior
Advocate
or
the
Government.
The
privileges and concessions, as given to the
Law Officers by virtue of their office
concerned, is again a matter between the
Government and Law Officer and that
hardly correlates with the issue sought to be
raised in this petition. Such submissions
seem to be entirely irrelevant.
16. In view of the above, the petition
fails and stands dismissed.
17. The petitioner has prayed for
certificate under Article 132 of the
Constitution of India.
18. The prayer stands rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.10.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Misc. Bench No. 9835 of 2015
Prem Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission Lko & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lalji Prasad Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
----
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Petitionseeking
direction
for
expeditious
disposal
of
Appeal-argument
under
section 13(4) and (A) District Consumer
Forum-shall be deemed to Civil courtdirection
can
be
issued-held-such
direction can be issued under Art.-227before Single Judge-petition consigned
to
record-with
liberty
to
invoke
appropriate jurisdiction.
Held: Para-6
This being the position and the manner in
which the State Commission is to function,
we are clearly of the opinion that if a
direction is required to be given for
expeditious disposal of an appeal then the
State
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Commission would also fall within the
superintendence of the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, a writ petition ought to be
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of
India,
which
shall
obviously
be
entertainable by a learned Single Judge.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2.
 The petitioner prays for a
mandamus for an early disposal of the
appeal filed before the State Consumer
Forum. The petitioner has relied on a
Division Bench order in Writ Petition No.
511 (MB) of 2014: Bala Devi versus The
State
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Commission, U.P. and others. dated
22.1.2014 to contend that such a direction
for expeditious disposal of the appeal can be
issued by this Court.
3. The status of a District Consumer
Forum and a State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission which is hearing
an appeal is to be gathered from the
nature of the composition of such forum
and the jurisdiction exercised by it. The
District Consumer Forum is chaired by a
person who has held the rank of a District
Judge, whereas the State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission is chaired
3 All] Prem Singh Vs. The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Lko & Ors.
1241
by a person who has held the office of
Judge of a High Court. It is thus, clear that
these forums are chaired by the persons
having occupied judicial offices. The
Consumer Protection Act in sub-sections
(4) to sub-section (7) of Section 13 clearly
provides that the District Consumer Forum
shall be deemed to be a civil court for the
purpose of Section 195, and Chapter XXVI
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The provisions of Code of the Civil
Procedure, to the extent indicated therein,
have been made applicable.
4. An appeal is preferred against any
order passed by the District Consumer
Forum to the State Commission. The
State
Commission
has
jurisdiction,
powers and authority which are to be
exercised by the Benches as constituted
under Section 16. The jurisdiction under
Section 17 is against appeals as also
against the complaints where the value of
the goods or services and compensation,
if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty
lakhs but does not exceed rupees one
crore.
5. The power to be exercised by the
State Commission while deciding an
appeal also indicates that all such powers
are available in appeal which are available
to the District Forum and, therefore, the
status is that of the forums, which begins
with the district level organisation, that
has been described under Section 13 (5)
as being a civil court. Consequently, the
State
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Commission is the appellate court of the
District Forum.
6. This being the position and the
manner in which the State Commission is
to function, we are clearly of the opinion
that if a direction is required to be given
for expeditious disposal of an appeal then
the State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission would also fall within the
superintendence of the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, a writ petition ought to be
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, which shall obviously be
entertainable by a learned Single Judge.
7. The writ petition, therefore, is
consigned to records with liberty to the
petitioner to invoke the appropriate
jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of
any such grievance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11158 of 2015
Gyanesh Rai & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
R.P. Singh, Dhirendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate
Constitution of India, Art.-226-custodian
torture-in spite of direction given under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.-no FIR lodgedCourt expressed its serious concern with
direction to lodge FIR and complete
investigation by Officer not below in
rank of Circle Officer-petition allowed.
Held: Para-24
Coupled with this, in the present case,
once such is the factual situation that is
so emerging that prima-facie there has
been custodial violence, then FIR ought