BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



FA.No.301/2009 against CC.No.20/2007 District Consumer Forum, Medak District at Sangareddy.



Between:

Thakur Rajkumar Singh, Head Master,

Rajput U.P.School,

IDA Bollaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal,

Medak District, A.P.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The District Educational Officer, Medak District,

O/o.DEO’s Office, Opp.Collector’s Bungalow,

Sangareddy, Medak District, A.P.

2.The Mandal Educational Officer, Jinnaram Mandal,

O/o.MDO’s Office, Jinnaram Village,

Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, A.P.

…Respondents/O.Ps.

For the petitioner : Party-in-person appeared.

For the Respondents : Smt.Poornima S.Roy.



QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.



FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Sri K.Satyanand, Hon’ble Male Member)

*******

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. This is an appeal filed by the complainant before the District Forum questioning the denial of recognition to the complainant’s school by the opposite parties who are the District Educational Officer and Mandal Educational Officer, obviously the Government officials.

3. The complainant claimed to have given admission to 13 students in his school anticipating the recognition. But it is complained that the opposite parties declined to give recognition entailing lot of inconvenience to the students. It is submitted further that the examination fee collected from them was accepted by the higher authorities thereby giving them to understand that there was recognition. Ultimately, he came to know that there was no recognition. The complainant claiming to be representing the students filed this complaint.

4. The same was resisted by the opposite parties. As per the counter affidavit of opposite party No.1, which was adopted by opposite party No.2, the complainant hardly answers the description of ‘consumer’ within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the Forum lacks jurisdiction. Thus, this is all the essential defense apart from other points with which we are least concerned at the stage of admission. In other words they have taken a plea that this was a case of patent lack of jurisdiction to the District Forum.

5. The complainant filed documents, Exs.A.1 to A.41 in order to prove the factum of admission of students and other proceedings. The opposite parties did not file any document.

6. On a consideration of the documentary evidence, the District Forum came to a conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable before it for want of jurisdiction in as much as the complainant hardly answers the description of ‘consumer’.

7. Assailing the order, the present appeal came to be filed. We find that this is not a case where the otherside has to be called to answer as it pertains to very obvious question of law. The learned counsel for the complainant/appellant cited a passage from a case rendered by the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65 = AIR 2004 SC 2141 to canvas the point that even the statutory and government authorities are amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. But we are very sure that that is a decision rendered in the context of a consumer and service provider relationship. By no stretch of imagination, the complainant and the officers of the government, that too dealing with the grant of recognition of the private school can be accorded the status of service provider as they were expected to essentially discharge sovereign functions. So the decision relied upon by the learned counsel has no bearing to support her proposition. We have not come across any provision, whatsoever empowering us to exercise jurisdiction in matters like this. These Fora are the creatures of the statute endowed with powers limited to the jurisdiction circumscribed by the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, we feel that there are no merits in the appeal.

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but without costs.

PRESIDENT





LADY MEMBER





MALE MEMBER

Dt:3.04.2009.