IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 12934 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, WEST QUILON SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. Q.73, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOPINATHAN, MEENATHU CHERRIYIL, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM. 2. T.L.LEKHA, MEENATHU CHERRIYIL, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, KAVANADU P.O. , KOLLAM. 3. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 12934 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a co-operative society. Respondents 1 and 2 raised a dispute in respect of certain matters against the society before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam. Since the decision of the Forum, viz., Ext.P1, was against the petitioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in which the Society suffered Ext.P2 adverse order at the hands of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The contention raised by the petitioner is that in view of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which impliedly excludes jurisdiction of authorities under other enactments, the Forum and the Commission do not have jurisdiction to entertain the compliant at all. 2. In A.R.Nagar Service Co-operative Bank. v. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KLT 55) and Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co- operative Society v. Michael Sebastian [2010 (1) KLT 938) this Court has considered the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, vis-a-vis Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act and held that the Industrial Disputes Act being a Central Statute, insofar as the amended section 69 did not w.p.c.12934/10 2 have the assent of the President of India as required under the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction under the Act viz., Industrial Disputes Act, is not excluded and that presently jurisdiction under Section 69 and under the Industrial Disputes Act are concurrent. These decisions squarely apply to the Consumer Protection Act also, which is also a Central Act on the same reason. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Consequently, Exts.P1 and P2 orders cannot be challenged on that ground. No other contentions have been raised by the petitioner before me. Accordingly, this writ petition dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge