Writ Petition No. 34459 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 34459 OF 2024 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: OLA ELECTRIC MOBILITY LIMITED A COMPANY REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 REGENT INSIGNIA NO 414, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, 17TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560034 [email protected] (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. MAITREYI B KANNUR., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1. CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFARIS KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110001 [email protected] 2. UNION OF INDIA THROUTH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTIONS KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110001 [email protected] (BY SRI.K.ARAVIND KAMATH., ASG) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, OPINION, INTERNAL NOTINGS, COMMUNICATIONS, / CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION ETC. FROM R-1 AUTHORITY WHEREBY R-1 HAS DETERMINED THE EXISTENCE OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 PURSUANT TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO. CCPA/23/2024-CCPA DTD. 03.10.2024 VIDE ANN-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and manufacturer and seller of the products of electrical vehicles. It manufactures electrical vehicle known as Ola Electric Vehicles. Though the petitioner has made a prayer insofar as Annexure-A is concerned, learned Senior
Legal Reasoning
preliminary enquiry and if there exists a prima facie case, the authority is empowered to cause investigation to be made by the Director General or by the District Collector. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 It is submitted that after considering the reply given by the petitioner, the petitioner was neither called upon to appear before the authority and no orders were passed by the authority saying that it has come to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner received the impugned notice/order on 04.12.2024 issued by Sri Praveen Kumar, Scientist F and Senior Director. Attention of this Court is drawn to sub-section (4) of Section 15, which permits delegation by the Director General to the Additional Director General or Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director. However, while pointing out to the memo filed at the hands of the respondents today, it is submitted that Sri Praveen Kumar, who is the author of the impugned notice is neither a Additional Director General or Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director. It is further pointed out that sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that the Central Authority shall have an Investigation Wing headed by the Director General for the purpose of conducting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 enquiry or investigation under the Act as may be directed by the Central Authority. It is therefore submitted while pointing out to the memo dated 06.01.2025, which is filed today that Sri Praveen Kumar, the author of the impugned communication is not in the investigation wing as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the notice/order at Annexure-C is issued by a incompetent authority and therefore same is required to be quashed. It is also submitted on instructions that the petitioner would be satisfied if the Director General or the Central authority in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act were to call upon the petitioner to furnish the requisite information as found in the impugned notice/order at Annexure-C. 4. The learned Senior Counsel has furnished a copy of certain documents where the Central Consumer Protection Authority has passed such orders or issued notices calling upon the company to furnish the details or documents. It is submitted that if the Central Consumer - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 Protection Authority were to call upon the petitioner to furnish the documents, the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the same and it would be impermissible for the author of the impugned notice/order to have issued the same contrary to the provisions of law. 5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI), appearing for the respondents would submit that in the impugned order itself Sri Praveen Kumar, has described his designation as Senior Director and therefore the contention of the petitioner that Sri Praveen Kumar is a incompetent authority to have issued the impugned communication at Annexure-C should not be accepted. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the notification dated 02.05.2024 filed along with the memo today and it is submitted that the Central Government while exercising power conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 10 and sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, has empowered the officers mentioned therein to exercise the powers and discharge - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 the functions of the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director General (Investigation) and Additional Director General (investigation) in the Central Consumer Protection Authority. It is pointed out that in the investigation wing of the Central Consumer Authority, Director General of Bureau of Indian Standards is conferred with the power and designated as Director General (investigation). It is submitted that by virtue of an official Memorandum dated 12.10.2020, while reorganizing the departments, it was decided by the competent authority to create new departments for better co-ordination and monitoring of respective activities. In the said Official Memorandum, the scope and function of the Central Consumer Protection Authority Co-ordination Cell (CCPAC) is provided for and accordingly the CCPAC is empowered to frame rules and regulations regarding Investigation Wing of CCPAC; carry out preliminary inquiry/investigation complaints regarding violation of rights of consumers as a class, on matters relating to (a) Violation of the Consumer Rights (b) Unfair trade practices (c) False and misleading advertisements. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 The learned ASGI would therefore submit that information is also furnished along with the memo filed today that the Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority took cognizance of the complaints received against the petitioner company and found that large number of grievances i.e., 10644 grievances were registered at the National Consumer Helpline from 1st September, 23 to 30th August, 2024 and found prima facie case of violation of the provisions of the Act at the hands of the petitioner. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to furnish written response. The Commissioner took note of the reply given by the petitioner and thereafter found that as per the preliminary inquiry report there exists a prima facie case as the petitioner company failed to furnish sufficient response with proper documentation. Learned ASGI further submits that the Commissioner, CCPAC has given full details of the short comings on the part of the petitioner and accordingly came to a conclusion that investigation is required. Accordingly, the Commissioner CCPAC proceeded to direct - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 the authorities to conduct a detail investigation on the aspects mentioned therein. 6. Learned ASGI further submit that having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 19, if the Central Authority is satisfied that there exists a prima facie case, it shall cause investigation and accordingly the authorities have proceeded to entrust the investigation to one of the officers in terms of the Official Memorandum issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that it would be futile to contend that Sri Praveen Kumar, who has issued the impugned communication calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain information is incompetent to conduct the investigation. Learned ASGI would therefore submit that there is no merit in the petition and accordingly the petition should be dismissed while permitting the authority to proceed to investigate in the matter. It is also submitted that opportunity as required in the provisions of law will be given to the petitioner, and there is no need to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 have any apprehension that orders would be passed without hearing the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned ASGI for the respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court find that the grievances of the petitioner is mainly on the ground that a incompetent authority has issued the impugned notice/order dated 04.12.2024 at Annexure-C. At the outset, it should be stated that the impugned communication at Annexure-C, cannot be construed as an order or notice. It is the communication made by the officer who has been entrusted with the investigation, calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain information. In para 2 of the impugned communication, it is stated that in furtherance of the show cause notice and reply given by the petitioner herein, and pursuant to the Section 19(3) of the Act, as an investigating authority the officer is calling upon the petitioner to produce the additional documents - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 and records in the possession of the petitioner without fail within the stipulated time. 8. On a plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 19, it is clear that the Central Authority is empowered to conduct or cause to be conducted a preliminary inquiry as to whether there exists a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights or any unfair trade practice or any false or misleading advertisements being given by any person which is prejudicial to the public interest or interest of consumers and if it is satisfied that there exists a prima facie case, the authority is empowered to cause investigation to be made by the Director General or by the District Collector. Going by the words employed in the provisions, it does not contemplate an order to be passed by the Central Authority stating that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. Nevertheless, as rightly pointed out by the learned ASGI, the Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority has recorded a finding having conducted a preliminary investigation - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 saying that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. If accordingly an officer has been entrusted to investigate into the matter, and the said officer has called upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents to consider the grievances against the petitioner, it cannot be faulted. At this juncture, when the investigating officer has called upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents which have been detailed in the impugned communication at annexure-C, it is well within the powers of the investigating officer, to have issued such a communication. The petitioner is obliged to furnish the additional documents to satisfy the investigating officer. If the provisions require a personal hearing of the petitioner, then accordingly the authority is obligated to afford a personal hearing or opportunity to the petitioner. At this juncture, when the investigating officer has called upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents or records for verification at the hands of the investigating officer, the petitioner is obliged to furnish the requisite documents. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the documents - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 are furnished in terms of what is called upon in Annexure- C. 9. The apprehension expressed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner will be tarnished if any statement is given by the investigating officer or the Director General or the Central Authority that an investigation has been directed against the petitioner, has been allayed by the learned ASGI in his submission that no such statement will be given by the investigating officer or the Director General on the Central Authority that an investigation has been caused against the petitioner. This should allay the fears expressed by the learned Senior Counsel insofar as the protection of the reputation of the petitioner company. All fair opportunity as contemplated in the provisions of law should be made available to the petitioner before any orders could be passed by the competent authority. 10. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla submits that the impugned communication - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 was issued on 04.12.2024. Thereafter by virtue of the interim order and directions issued by this Court, time is extended to submit the documents. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that some more time may be given to the petitioner to submit the documents called for. It is also submitted that the information and documents are voluminous and therefore reasonable time should be given to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, six more weeks time is granted to the petitioner to furnish the details and documents called for in the impugned communication dated 04.12.2024. 12. With these observations, the writ petition
Arguments
Counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even on the previous occasion a submission was made that the petitioner is not pressing prayer No.1 in respect of annexure-A. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is as against Annexure - C dated 04.12.2024. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:325 WP No. 34459 of 2024 2. On the basis of certain complaints said to have been received from the consumers of the products of the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.10.2024 at Annexure-A mentioning the nature of grievances and number of grievances of the consumers received by the competent authority under the provisions of the Consumers Protection Act, 2019. The petitioner was called upon to give a reply to the show cause notice along with supporting documents if any, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the communication. Accordingly, a detailed reply was given by the petitioner on 21.10.2024, in terms of Annexure-B. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of provisions contained in the Act, more particularly Section 19, the Central Authority is empowered to conduct a
Decision
stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL