1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)Nos.1317 to 1324 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 in WA(MD)Nos.1317 to 1324 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 in W.A.(MD)Nos.1318 to 1324 of 2011 P.Ponnusamy ... Appellant in all the W.As/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Court Complex, Theni District. ...Respondent-1 in all the W.As. 2.R.Karthiga ...Respondent-2 in WA 1317/2011 3.R.Deebika, minor, rep.by her father Ramamoorthi ...Respondent-2 in WA 1318/2011 4.S.Nagajothi ...Respondent-2 in WA 1319/2011 5.G.shanmugavel ...Respondent-2 in WA 1320/2011 6.Ramamoorthi ...Respondent-2 in WA 1321/2011 7.S.Kannan ...Respondent-2 in WA 1322/2011 8.G.Shanmugvel ...Respondent-2 in WA 1323/2011 9.R.Malathi ...Respondent-2 in WA 1324/2011 W.A.(MD)No.1317/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9139 of 2011. Prayer in W.P(MD)No.9139 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.91 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. W.A.(MD)No.1318/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9140 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9140 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 records in E.A.No.92 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.175 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. W.A.(MD)No.1319/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9141 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9141 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.93 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.182 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. W.A.(MD)No.1320/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9142 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9142 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.94 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.183 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. W.A.(MD)No.1321/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9143 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9143 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.95 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.184 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 W.A.(MD)No.1322/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9144 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9144 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.96 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.185 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. W.A.(MD)No.1323/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9145 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.97 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.186 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. W.A.(MD)No.1324/2011: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9146 of 2011. Prayer in WP.(MD)No.9146 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in E.A.No.98 of 2008 dated 03.08.2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the C.C.No.187 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent herein to the Special Court under TNPID Act at Madurai as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, 1997. For Appellant : Mr.P.Muthuvijayapandian in all the WAs For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Anandharaj in all the WAs Govt.Advocate. COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] These writ appeals are preferred against the common order passed by the writ court, dated 31.10.2011, in W.P.(MD)Nos.9139 to 9146 of 2011, dismissing those writ petitions filed by the appellant seeking for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 relief of quashing the proceedings in E.A.Nos.91 to 98 of 2008, dated 03.08.2008, on the file of the 1st respondent and consequently directing the 1st respondent to transfer C.C.Nos.174, 175, 182 183, 184, 185, 186 and 187 of 2007 on its file to the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (in short "TNPID Act"), as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of TNPID Act. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that in view of the provisions under Section 6(3) of TNPID Act, any pending case in any other court to which the provisions of TNPID Act apply shall stand transferred to the Special Court and, as such, it is contended that the proceedings pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Theni, the 1st respondent herein, in C.C.Nos.174, 175, 182 183, 184, 185, 186 and 187 of 2007, should be transferred to the concerned Special Court, established for the cases under TNPID Act. It is contended that the appellant is willing to settle the matter amicably and he was not able to do it because of non-bailable warrants issued against him by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the 1st respondent herein. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that where there is a Special Act enacted for the cases arising out of default in repayment of deposited amounts, the affected persons should initiate proceedings only before the Special Court and not before any other forum. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as the said aspect was not properly gone into by the writ court and being aggrieved against the same, the appellant has been constrained to prefer these writ appeals. 3.It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the event of preferring appeals, as per Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the appeals are barred by limitation and as such the appellant is not having any efficacious remedy and therefore he was constrained to approach this Court under writ jurisdiction, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.We have given our anxious and careful consideration to the contentions put-forward by the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the entire materials available on record, including the common order passed by the writ 0Court, dated 31.10.2011. 5.At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the appellant has willingly participated throughout the proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the said Forum has also passed final orders and the proceedings are at the stage of execution, and only at that stage, and that too after issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, the appellant has resorted to file writ petitions invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by raising the above contentions. At this stage, it is also to be pointed out that the appellant has deliberately avoided to prefer any appeal, as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and without exhausting such an effective and efficacious remedy, thought it fit to to prefer writ petitions before this Court and the court has rightly dismissed those writ petitions by assigning valid reasons and by going into the important contentions raised by the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 6.Now, it is to be stated that the only contention put-forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that affected and aggrieved depositors have to resort to initiate proceedings only before the Special Court, established under TNPID Act, and they cannot approach District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the provisions under Section 6(3) of TNPID Act. As far as this contention is concerned, the writ court, in paragraph No.6 of its common order, has rightly pointed out the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, incorporating the contentions as well as the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs. and others, reported in 2004(2) LW 41 = (2004) 1 SCC 305, as hereunder. "6.The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions dated 27.08.2000 were in the nature of Writ of prohibition. In the batch of Writ petitions referred a contention was made that the District Consumer Forum cannot deal with the matter and the aggrieved must only go before the authority constituted under the TNPID Act. Those writ petitions were dismissed by this Court stating that the Supreme Court vide judgment in the Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (dead) through LRs. And others reported 2004(2) LW 41 = (2004) 1 SCC 305. In that case the Supreme court held that the forum created under the Consumer Forum is a Special Forum. Merely because other forums are available, it will not take away the jurisdiction or the additional remedies provided under the 1986 Act. In paragraph 18 of the said Act it was observed as follows: "The decision in Dhulabhai case also does not help the appellant. The present case is not one where the question to be considered is as to the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 90 read with Section 156 of the Act. Provisions of 1986 Act, as already made clear above, apply in addition to the other provisions available under other enactments. It follows that the remedies available under the 1986 Act for redressal of disputes are in addition to the available remedies under the Act. Under the 1986 Act we have to consider as regards the additional jurisdiction conferred on the forums and not their exclusion. In Dhulabhai case consideration was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was excluded. Propositions (1) and (2) indicate that where the statue gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the jurisdiction of Civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Further, where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. The remedies that are available to an aggrieved party under the 1986 Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 are wide. For instance in addition to granting a specific relief the forums under the 1986 Act have jurisdiction to award compensation for the mental agony, suffering, etc., which possibly could not be given under the Act in relation to dispute under Section 90 of the Act. Merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the members and the management of the society under the Act and forums are provided, it can not take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the forums under the 1986 Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act, reference to which is already made above, When the decision of Dhulabhai's case was rendered the provisions similar to 1986 Act providing additional remedies to parties were neither available nor considered. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted it leads to taking away the additional remedies and forums expressly provided under the 1986 Act, which is not acceptable.” (Emphasis added)" 7.Apart from highlighting the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions relied upon by it, the writ court also pointed out, in its common order, that as far as the cases on hand is concerned, the orders were passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as early as on 03.08.2008 and the said orders have become final and they are at the stage of execution proceedings. The writ court also made in clear that as per Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, every order of the District Forum, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, will become final. Therefore, the writ Court has rightly held that the orders passed by the District Forum have also reached finality. It is also pointed out by the writ court that though appeal provision is there, the same was not exhausted by the appellant and he has deliberately allowed the period of limitation to expire. 8.The writ court further pointed out in its order about the exception taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the High Courts entertaining writ petitions against orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal forums and emphasized that where there are two tier appellate system is provided under a special enactment, the parties will have to go before that forum. For arriving at such a conclusion, the writ court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Limited, reported in 2010(11) SCC 622. The writ court further pointed out, in paragraph No.13 of its order, as hereunder: "13.Therefore, the observation of the Supreme Court quoted above will make it clear that it is not as if it is the only forum for executing or recovering amounts from the financial establishments which is in default. The act namely TNPID Act is quasi criminal given equal power of recovery by attaching the properties of defaulter. The non obstante clause provided under Section 14, can never override a Central Act i.e., the Consumer Protection Act. Both acts do not bar, the remedies open to the depositors for recovering the amounts from the defaulting financial institutions." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 9.The above findings of the writ court make it crystal clear that the aggrieved and affected depositors are having more than one remedy for recovering the amounts defaulted by the financial institutions. Such being the position, the affected depositors cannot be prevented from approaching District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. It is also rightly pointed out by the writ court that the defaulters should not be permitted to raise such technical contentions to get over the orders passed by the District Consumer Forums. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ court. 10.Above all, at the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that the appellant has participated in the proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum all along and after its orders reaching finality and execution proceedings are initiated and that too after issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against him, the appellant has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. We are unable to find any ground warranting interference of this Court in the order of the writ court. 11.Accordingly, all these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Court complex, Theni District. +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 42579 Gb SR : 03.01.2012 : 7p/3c Judgment in W.A.(MD)Nos.1317 to 1324 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 in W.A.(MD)Nos.1317 to 1324 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2011 in W.A.(MD)Nos.1318 to 1324 of 2011 Dated:01.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/