1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1526/2010 M/S OJAL RICE MILL ..VS.. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri D.V.Chauhan, advocate for petitioner Shri W.G.Paunikar, advocate for Respondent no.2 Shri A.T.Purohit, advocate for respondent no.3 CORAM:SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P.B. WARALE, JJ. D A T E: JUNE 9 , 2011. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties on two consecutive days, at length. The learned counsel for the K.V.I.C. had raised a preliminary objection about the tenability of the writ petition on the ground that the Consumer Redressal Forum had by its majority decision dated 17.12.2009 dismissed the complaint on the ground of tenability by holding that the petitioner was not a ‘consumer’ and it was necessary of the petitioner to have approached the State Commission by filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the K.V.I.C. on the issue of the tenability of this writ petition. The Consumer Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to decide some of the issues on merits when it was of the view that the complaint before the Consumer Forum was not tenable and it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It appears that the petitioner had decided to abide by the decision rendered by the Forum that it was not a ‘consumer’ and therefore, the petitioner had approached this court by 2 filing the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner had rightly relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC Page 2083 to substantiate his submission that the court having no jurisdiction to entertain the matter cannot enter into the merits of the matter. Since the findings rendered by the Forum, if any, on the issues, involved on merits, are a nullity as it had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint, the same can be ignored. The submission on behalf of the K.V.I.C. that the petitioner should have approached the state commission has no merit, in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the K.V.I.C. is unsustainable, we heard the learned counsel for parties at length on the issues involved in this writ petition. However, on hearing the learned counsel for parties, and on perusal of the documents produced before us, we are of the clear view that several disputed questions of facts are involved in this writ petition and it would not be proper for this court to entertain the writ petition and decide the issues which require tendering of evidence. The petitioner is however, free to file a civil suit. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SMP