Shri Ramchandra Hari Thorat & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- D G KARNIK
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Judgment
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1721 OF 2011 Shri Ramchandra Hari Thorat and others. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. Sandesh Patil i/by Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav for the petitioners. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. S.N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents-State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & D.G. KARNIK, J. Monday, May 03, 2011 P.C. What is challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2009 of the District Consumer Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 1645/2009.
After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the decision dated 22nd December, 2010 of the learned Single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.5223 of 2009 and the connected matters, the petitioners seek leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal before the State Commission. The learned counsel, however, submits that since the petitioners were bonafide prosecuting this petition, the petitioners did not avail of the alternative remedy early. 2 wp-1721-11.sxw
While permitting the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appear before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we leave it open to the petitioners to make an application for condonation of delay and the State Commission shall consider such application on its own merit.
It is clarified that we may not be treated to have gone into the merits of the controversy raised in this petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In order to enable the petitioners to move the State Commission as aforesaid, the District Consumer Redressal Forum shall not continue with the execution proceedings for a period of six weeks from today. CHIEF JUSTICE D.G. KARNIK, J.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.