BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) Nos.21614, 21616, 21621, 21622, 21627, 21628, 23500, 23501,
23503, 23505, 23507, 23508, 23510, 23514, 23518, 23519, 23521, 23528, 23531,
23536, 23537, 23543, 23545, 23547, 23550 and 23553 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18316, 18321, 18331, 18332, 18335, 18338, 20132 to 23137,
20139, 20141, 20144, 20145, 20147, 20152, 20157, 20165, 20162, 20172, 20173,
20174, 20177 and 20178 of 2019
In W.P.(MD) No.21614 of 2019:-
The Joint Commissioner,
Central Excise,
Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Tractor Road NGO ‘A’ Colony,
Tirunelveli 627 007.
/vs./
1.The President/District Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum,
Tirunelveli District Court Buildings,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
State Tax,
Commercial Tax Department,
Tirunelveli.
1/7
… Petitioner
| st | |||||||
| st | |||||||
| th |
- M.Muhammad Abubakar Siddik
- The Partner,
Hotel Annapoorna,
Ambai Road,
Melapalayam,
Tirunelveli – 5. … Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from proceeding with the complaint in CC.No.96/2019 on the file of 1st respondent against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu
Junior Standing Counsel
For R1, R3 & R4 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed by the Joint Commissioner, Central
Excise for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1 respondent from proceeding
with the consumer complaints. The petitioner has been arrayed as one of the
respondents before the 1 respondent, District Consumer Forum by the 3 respondent in an action against the 4 respondent in the following cases:-
2/7
rd
| S.No | W.P.Nos | C.C.No | Complainant | |
| 1 | W.P.(MD) No.21614 of 2019 | C.C.No.96 of 2019 | M.Muhammad Abubakar Siddik | |
| 2 | W.P.(MD) No.21616 of 2019 | C.C.No.108 of 2019 | K.Sermakani | |
| 3 | W.P.(MD) No.21621 of 2019 | C.C.No.91 of 2019 | M.Mydeen Pitchai | |
| 4 | W.P.(MD) No.21622 of 2019 | C.C.No.106 of 2019 | K.Maheswaran | |
| 5 | W.P.(MD) No.21627 of 2019 | C.C.No.97 of 2019 | D.Joseph | |
| 6 | W.P.(MD) No.21628 of 2019 | C.C.No.109 of 2019 | K.Pulithurai | |
| 7 | W.P.(MD) No.23500 of 2019 | C.C.No.132 of 2019 | P.Murugan | |
| 8 | W.P.(MD) No.23501 of 2019 | C.C.No.133 of 2019 | S.Velu | |
| 9 | W.P.(MD) No.23503 of 2019 | C.C.No.134 of 2019 | P.Palavesam | |
| 10 | W.P.(MD) No.23505 of 2019 | C.C.No.137 of 2019 | P.Karuvelamuthu | |
| 11 | W.P.(MD) No.23507 of 2019 | C.C.No.142 of 2019 | M.Mohammed Abubakar Siddik | |
| 12 | W.P.(MD) No.23508 of 2019 | C.C.No.135 of 2019 | P.Ganapathy | |
| 13 | W.P.(MD) No.23510 of 2019 | C.C.No.219 of 2019 | M.Esakkimuthu | |
| 14 | W.P.(MD) No.23514 of 2019 | C.C.No.159 of 2019 | A.Kumar | |
| 15 | W.P.(MD) No.23518 of 2019 | C.C.No.139 of 2019 | G.Muthukumar | |
| 16 | W.P.(MD) No.23519 of 2019 | C.C.No.141 of 2019 | E.Appathurai | |
| 17 | W.P.(MD) No.23521 of 2019 | C.C.No.136 of 2019 | L.Ranjith Kumar | |
| 18 | W.P.(MD) No.23528 of 2019 | C.C.No.138 of 2019 | P.Lakshmanan | |
| 19 | W.P.(MD) No.23531 of 2019 | C.C.No.140 of 2019 | M.Ganesan | |
| 20 | W.P.(MD) No.23536 of 2019 | C.C.No.187 of 2019 | C.Maharaja | |
| 21 | W.P.(MD) No.23537 of 2019 | C.C.No.188 of 2019 | D.Joseph | |
| 22 | W.P.(MD) No.23543 of 2019 | C.C.No.127 of 2019 | C.Maharaja | |
| 23 | W.P.(MD) No.23545 of 2019 | C.C.No.129 of 2019 | C.Maharaja | |
| 24 | W.P.(MD) No.23547 of 2019 | C.C.No.128 of 2019 | D.Joseph | |
| 25 | W.P.(MD) No.23550 of 2019 | C.C.No.186 of 2019 | C.Maharaja | |
| 26 | W.P.(MD) No.23553 of 2019 | C.C.No.171 of 2019 | P.Venkatesan |
3/7
| rd | |||||||||||
| rd | |||||||||||
| rd | |||||||||||
| st |
2.There is no representation on behalf of the 3 respondent, the
complainant before the Consumer Forum and in this proceeding despite service of
notice. The 3 respondent had initiated proceedings before the Consumer Forum.
In all these cases, the 3 respondent alleged deficiency of services by the 4 respondent hotels in the respective writ petitions.
th
3.Though the writ petitions have been filed for a prohibition, it appears that
appropriate remedy against the order of the Consumer Forum rejecting the request
for deleting the name of the petitioner was available to the petitioner under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India as wide power has been vested with this
Court in its power of Superintendence of all Court. On the other hand, the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner.
4.The 1 respondent/District Consumer Forum ought to have examined the
issue as to whether the petitioner herein was either a necessary party or the proper
party in the consumer complaints filed for the alleged deficiency of service by the 4/7
| th | |||||||||||
| rd | |||||||||||
| st | |||||||||||
| rd | |||||||||||
| st |
respective hotels (the 4 respondent in the respective writ petitions) in the
complaints filed by the 3 respondent in these writ petitions. Though the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable to the
proceeding before the Consumer Forum, nevertheless the principles under the
Code of Civil Procedure, as far as joinder, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties are concerned, is to be followed in the proceeding before it.
5.Undoubtedly, the petitioner is neither necessary nor a proper party in the
said proceeding. The 1 respondent Tribunal ought to have entertained the
applications filed by the petitioner for deleting their name from the respective
consumer complaints. If there was any complaint regarding the extra collection of
tax by the hotels, it was open for the complainant (3 respondent in the respective
writ petitions) to file appropriate applications under Section 54 of the TNGST Act
for refund of the excess tax, if any, that may have been cancelled. Clearly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was unnecessary.
6.Considering the above, I am inclined to allow these writ petitions by
directing the 1 respondent/District Consumer Forum to delete the name of the 5/7
| rd |
petitioner from the respective consumer complaints and pass appropriate orders in
the complaints filed by the respective 3 respondent in the respective consumer petitions before it.
7.These writ petitions stand allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 18.03.2022 Internet : Yes / No
To
The Deputy Commissioner,
State Tax,
Commercial Tax Department,
Tirunelveli.
6/7
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) Nos.21614, 21616, 21621, 21622, 21627, 21628, 23500, 23501, 23503, 23505, 23507, 23508, 23510, 23514, 23518, 23519, 23521, 23528, 23531,
23536, 23537, 23543, 23545, 23547, 23550 and 23553 of 2019
18.03.2022
7/7
