TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded that despite repeated representations made to the opposite parties, no remedial measure was taken by them and she continued to suffer-harassment due to unsolicited calls which had adversely affected her life in different ways. The State Commission took cognizance of the complaint filed by the appellant, issued notice to the opposite parties and passed order dated 01.05.2006, paragraphs 9 and 10 of which are extracted below : "9. We hereby, by interim order direct all the service providers of mobile phone services not to disclose any personal information in their possession including the mobile phone number in their possession to any unauthorised persons including the Banks, financial institutions, finance companies as it is a breach of "Privacy Statement" and undertaking and may invite the cancellation of their licence as no stranger can possess such information without being provided by the service provider who alone is in its possession.. 10. At the same time all unauthorised persons including the Banks, financial institutions, finance companies and any other persons who are not supposed to be in possession of the information of the subscribers including the mobile phone nu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice providers as to the details of the consumers as well as mobile telephone number and for this the service provider or the banks, financial institutions shall be deemed to be severally and jointly liable. It is made clear that if in future any violation or non-compliance of this order is brought to the notice of this Commission by any consumer of any service provider of such service, it would be treated as failure or omission to comply with the order and shall invite not only heavy punitive damages but sentence of imprisonment as provided u/s 27 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Chief Executive Officers of the service providers, banks and the financial institutions shall be liable for this punishment." Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and one Shri Rajiv Arora filed Writ Petition Nos. 16332-34 of 2006 for quashing the aforesaid order, The Division Bench of the High Court issued notice and stayed the operation of order dated 27.09.2006. ( 4. ) DURING the pendency of the writ peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for any purpose whatsoever and also by way of telemarketing. (ii) All those agencies, banks, financial institutions or persons who are having their own directories for this purpose who are neither their subscribers nor their clients, shall disband those directories forthwith. (iii) Every such subscriber who suffers this agony, harassment and nuisance shall be entitled to a minimum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, who has and is suffering as the complainant has suffered, as and when he approaches the Consumer Forum in this regard. (iv) To bring in more competition, better coverage for the area with another service provider, lower rates and unsatisfactory or bad customer service with the current service provider, TRAI is directed to bring in 'NUMBER PORTABILITY' RULE, as prevalent in the USA and other countries, so as to avoid the subscribers to change their phone number and thereby informing every now and then hundreds of friends, colleagues, relatives about the new phone number. (v) TRAI shall establish a National 'Do Not Call' Registry, which shall apply to all the marketers; specifically prescribing that commercial telemarketers cannot call a subscriber if that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the hearing of the complaint because the writ petitions filed by the respondents questioning its jurisdiction to pass order dated 27.09.2006 were pending before the High Court. We have considered the respective arguments/ submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997)3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi- judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9- 40) 67 IA 222 : AIR 1940 PC 105. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine." In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997)5 SCC 536, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed : "So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 - or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 - is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment." ( 8. ) IN the judgments relied upon by Shri Vaidyanathan, which, by and large, reiterate the proposition laid down in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwariv.Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, AIR 1969 SC 556, it has been held that an alternative remedy is not a bar to the en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force would be given proper meaning and effect and if the complaint is not stayed and the parties are not relegated to the arbitration, the Act purports to operate in derogation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Prima facie, the contention appears to be plausible but on construction and conspectus of the provisions of the Act we think that the contention is not well founded. The Parliament is aware of the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Contract Act, 1872 and the consequential remedy available under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., to avail of right of civil action in a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the Act provides the additional remedy." In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, (2000)7 SCC 668, this Court observed : "Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system, of consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where they are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Section 19, Appeals.-Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Sta....