STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Division Bench of the J and K High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur on Saturday dismissed the appeal filed by a doctor on grounds that it is not maintainable with costs of Rs 5,000 to be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund.
The Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed by one Dr Vipan Banotra, son of late Niku Ram, resident of Mohalla Kama Khan, Ward No. 7 Poonch against the order dated 4th February 2015 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu wherein the Commission had authorised one official of the Commission to file a complaint against the said appellant before the competent Magistrate for having committed perjury and fabrication of records.
It was alleged that on account of the negligence of the Doctor, respondent herein, the complainant namely Abdul Shubam, son of Abdul Ghani, resident of Mandi Loran Tehsil Haveli District Poonch, being the only bread winner of the family was forced to lead his life as a cripple and that his dependants had become destitute.
With a view to bring the guilty to book, a direction was issued by the Commission to the Inspector General of Crimes and Railways (J and K) to register a case on the basis of the judgment of the Commission for the commission of offences regarding fabrication of records and forgery with a further direction to complete the investigation within a period of 4 months thereof.
The said order came to be challenged by the appellant herein in CIMA No. 136/2009 titled Dr. Vipan Banotra v/s Abdul Shubam and others, which came to be finally decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 14th March, 2013 wherein the Commission’s direction to the IG Crime Branch were deleted and Commission was given liberty to lodge a complaint itself or by an authorised officer by the Division Bench in the previous Appeal.
The counsel of respondent, Advocate Aseem Sawhney submitted that pursuant to the order aforementioned, the Commission vide its order dated 4th February, 2015 authorised one Predhiman Krishan Raina, an official of the Commission to lodge a complaint before the competent Magistrate and this order, which has been challenged again and also urged that the appeal itself was misconceived as the impugned order was not one, which could be said to be an appealable order in terms of Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987.
Division Bench observed that in the present case, however, the order impugned is only an authorisation granted to an official of the Commission to file a complaint before the competent Magistrate and cannot be said to be an order against which an appeal at all lies in terms of Section 17 of the Act. Not only this, by virtue of judgment and order dated 14th March, 2013 passed, this court had granted liberty to the Commission to lodge a complaint either itself or by an authorised officer.
The judgment and order dated 14th March, 2013 not having been challenged by the appellant herein had attained finality. What was done by the Commission was, in fact, in furtherance of the liberty granted to the Commission to lodge a complaint and in doing so, the Commission cannot be said to have committed any illegality. Advocate Aditya Sharma appeared for the appellant. JNF
