IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18370 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ABJ PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 29/983 B, BANK ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.U.ALOYSIUS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN @ ULAHANNAN. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SMT.SMITHA GEORGE, SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 017. 2. SMT.MERCY BISSY JOSEPH, D/O.T.J.JOSEPH, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, OCHENTHURUTHU P.O., KOCHI 682 008. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18370/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT NO.556 OF 2010 DTD. 18/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE R1. P2: COPY OF PETITION FOR INJUNCTION DTD. 18/10/2010 BY R2 BEFORE R1 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. P3: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.556/2010 IN CC 556 OF 2010 BY R1 DTD.19/10/2010 P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 20/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 IN CC.NO.556 OF 2010. P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 28/01/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. P6: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.556/2010 IN CC.NO.556 OF 2010 BY R1 DTD. 3/1/2011. P7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 21/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE R1 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. P8: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.165/2011 IN CC.556 OF 2010 BY R1 DTD.2/4/2011. P9: COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER THE R1 ACT DTD. 5/04/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P10: COPY OF LETTER NO.A1-482/2006 DTD. 25/04/2011 SENT BY R1 FORUM TO THE PETITIONER. P11: COPY OF PETITION DTD. 30/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. P12: COPY OF OBJECTION DTD. 21/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY R2 BEFORE R1. P13: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.299/2011 IN CC.556/2010 BY R1 DTD.24/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18370/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the respondent in C.C.No.556/2010 pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam. In this writ petition, the prayers sought are the following:- (i). To call for the records leading upto Ext.P13 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (ii). To issue a writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam from continuing the proceedings in Complaint No.C.C.556 of 2010. 2. According to the petitioner, apprehending bias on the part of the President of the Forum, they filed I.A.299/2011 before the first respondent a copy of which is produced as Ext.P11. In Ext.P11 the prayer made by the petitioner is as follows:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying W.P.(C).18370/2011 2 affidavit, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum may be pleased to stop all further proceedings in the above matter in the interest of justice.” 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A, petitioner has made reference to various postings in the matter and the observations allegedly made by the President on 26.2.2011. It is further alleged that the President had shouted at the petitioner and compelled them to settle the matter by allotting a flat to the complainant. It is stated that for this reason the petitioner intended to move this Court for transferring the case to some other Forum to prevent injustice. The I.A filed by the petitioner was considered and Ext.P13 order was passed by the Forum on 24.6.2011 by which the petition was dismissed. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Having regard to the fact that the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 17(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, I do not think it necessary for this Court to enter W.P.(C).18370/2011 3 into the merits of the controversy lest any pronouncement will prejudice the case of the petitioner or the opposite party. 5. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. (a). It will be open to the petitioner to move the State Commission invoking its power under Section 17(A) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking transfer of the case. (b). It is also open to the petitioner to bring into the notice of the first respondent, where the case is stated to be posted for evidence, that an application is being made before the State Commission under Section 17(A) of the Act, as directed above and it is for the first respondent to deal with the matter in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs