1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1714 OF 2009 ... The Maharashtra State co.op.Credit Societies Federation Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Umesh R. Mankapure for the Petitioners. Mr.S.V.Bhosale, AGP for Respondents Nos.1, 3 & 4. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Mr.N.D.Sharma for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:12th November, 2009 2 P.C.: 1. In this petition, filed by the Federation of Co.op.Credit Societies, the Petitioner challenges the validity of second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 15 of the Act reads as under: 15.Appeal:- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed; Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period; (Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the 3 appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.) 2. Perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that Section 15 creates a right of appeal and lays down no appeal can be entertained by the Appellant authority filed by a person who has been held liable to pay the amount by the lower authority unless the Appellant deposits either fifty per cent of the amount which has been directed to be paid or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less. Therefore, the bottom line is that if you want to file an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the maximum amount that you have to deposit is Rs.25,000/-. It is the validity of this provision which is challenged in this petition. 4 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners. He submits that decrees are obtained not only against the Co.operative Credit Societies, but also against the members of the Managing Committees of those societies, some of whom are poor persons and persons belonging to backward class. In case a decree is passed against them, then they are required to file an appeal. But their appeal cannot be entertained by the Appellante Authority without the condition of pre-deposit being satisfied. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, the second proviso to Section 15 is violative of guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel pointed out to us several judgments of the Suprement Court and this Court. The learned Counsel submits that the provision also does 5 not confer discretion on the Appellant Authority to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit and therefore, according to the learned Counsel the provision is violative of guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents also. 5. In our opinion, challenge to the provision is totally devoid of any substance. There are appellate provision in various Statutes laying down the condition of pre- deposit, some vesting discretion in the Appellate Authority to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit, some not doing so, all those provisions have been upheld by the Supreme Court from time to time. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Seth Nand Lal and 6 anr. v/s. State of Haryana and ors. 1980 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 574 considered the appellate provision which provided for pre- deposit and in paragraph 22 of the judgment the Constitution bench has observed thus: 22. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that the right of appeal is a creature of a statute and there is no reason why the legislature while granting the right cannot impose conditions for the exercise of such right so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions rendering the right almost illusory (vide: the latest decision in Anant Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat), Counsel for the appellants, however, urged that the conditions imposed should be regarded as unreasonably onerous especially when no discretion has been left with the appellate or revisional authority to relax or waive the condition or grant exemption in respect thereof in fit and proper cases and, therefore, the fetter imposed must be regarded as unconstitutional and struck down. It is not possible to accept this contention for more than one reason. In the first place, the object of imposing the condition is obviously to prevent frivolous appeals and 7 revision that impede the implementation of the ceiling policy; secondly, having regard to sub- sections (8) and (9) it is clear that the cash deposit or bank guarantee is not byw ay of any exaction but in the nature of securing mesne profits from the person who is ultimately found to be in unlawful possession of the land; thirdly, the deposit or the guarantee is correlated to the landholdings tax (30 times the tax) which, we are informed, varies in the State of Haryana around a paltry amount of Rs.8 per acre annually; fourthly, the deposit to be made or bank guarantee to be furnished is confined to the landholdings tax payable in respect of the disputed area i.e. The area or part thereof which is declared surplus after leaving the permissible area to the appellant or petitioner. Having regard to those aspects, particularly the meagre rate of the annual land- tax payable, the fetter imposed on the right of appeal/revision, even in the absence of a provision conferring discretion on the appellant/revisional authority to relax or waive the condition, cannot be regarded as onerous or unreasonable. The challenge to Section 18(7) must, therefore, fail. 5. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Anant Mills Co.Ltd. Vs. State of 8 Gujrat 1975 (2) S.C.C.175 has considered the appellate provision in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act relating to pre- deposit and has held that provision to be valid. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Vijay Prakash D.Mehta and anr. v/s. Collector or Customs (Preventive) Bombay, (1988) 4 SCC 402, has in clear terms held that right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principle of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. In its judgment in the case of State of Tripura v/s Manoranjan Chakraborty and ors. (2001) 10 SCC 740, the Supreme Court was considering the appellate provision which conferred discretion on the Appellate authority to 9 waive imposition of decretal amount only to the extent of 50%. The Supreme court has upheld the validity of that provision. In the present case the provision is made for deposit of 50% of the amount awarded or Rs. 25,000/-, whichever is less. Thus, by the Statute itself the requirement of deposit of 50% of the awarded amount has been waived. In our opinion, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manoranjan Chakraborty, referred to above, no fault can be found with the provision. We also find that similar provision made in Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act has been upheld by the Division Bench of this court by its judgment in the case of Kausalya Sampat v/s. Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd. & ors., 2004(6) Bom.C.R.661. 6. Taking overall view of the matter, 10 therefore, in our opinion, there is no room to hold that second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act in any way violates the guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution. Petition, therefore, has no substance. It is rejected. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, we have not considered the other reliefs that are prayed in this petition. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)