1

Reserved on 26.07.2012

Delivered on 10/09/2012

Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 3 of 2012

In Re: .................................Petitioner

Vs.

Anil Kumar Jindal and others .............. ...............Respondents

Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha,J.

Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.)

A legal preliminary objection has been raised about non maintainability

of the present contempt proceedings, which have been initiated against the

contemnor an Advocate, under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) regarding the alleged contempt committed by

him of the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar.

We have heard Sri V.M.Zaidi, learned counsel for the contemnor as also

learned AGA for the State respondent.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the contemnor that

Section 10 of the Act empowers the High Court to punish only in respect of

contempts of courts subordinate to it and a District Consumer forum is neither a

court nor a court subordinate to the High Court. As such the High Court has no

jurisdiction to punish a person of any Act of contempt of Consumer Forum and

the proceedings initiated against the contemnor by High Court are

misconceived. In support of his argument learned counsel has relied upon

Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) 9 SCC 221 and

Ethopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narayan Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539.

On the other hand learned AGA has argued in support of the jurisdiction

being vested with the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings even in

respect of contempt committed of a Consumer Forum. According to him the

2

Consumer Forum has all the trappings of the Court and as such under Section 10

of the Act is a Court and also subordinate to the High Court.

Before proceeding any further it will be necessary to have a look at the

relevant statutory provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 of the Act.

Section 2 of the said Act defines Contempt of Courts.

Civil Contempt is defined by its Section 2(b) as under:-

“2(b) civil contempt " means wilful disobedience to any

judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a

court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court ”.

While Criminal Contempt is defined in Section 2(c) as under:-

“2(c) criminal contempt " means the publication (whether by

words. spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any

other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower

the authority of, any court ; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due

course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii)interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to

obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ;”

Section 10 of the Act, which empowers the High Court to take

cognizance of a contempt in respect of a Court subordinate to it reads as under:-

“Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate

courts- Every High Court shall have and exercise the same

jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same

procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts

subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of

itself :

Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt

alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate

to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the

Indian Penal Code.(45 of 1860)”.

In the background of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the

submissions made by the learned counsels the questions, which require our

considerations are:

3

(i) Whether a District Consumer Forum is a Court, and

(ii) If yes, whether a District Consumer Forum is subordinate to the High

Court.

In case the above two questions are answered in affirmative this Court

would then be well within its jurisdiction to decide the present contempt

proceedings.

At the very outset as regards the first question, it will be pertinent to

mention that the expression “Court” has no where been defined in the Act.

However, certain decisions of the Supreme Court may be referred to derive its

correct import in which it has been used in the Act.

In State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building

Cooperative Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412 Supreme Court took the view that

Consumer Forums are not courts but are quasi judicial bodies or authorities or

agencies. However, it may be noted that this decision was given in the context

where competence of the parliament was under challenge before the Supreme

Court on the ground that parallel Courts cannot be established by the

Parliament, which may run parallel to Civil Courts.

In Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) relied upon by the present

contemnor the Supreme Court considering the nature of proceedings before

Consumer Redressal Forum and Commissions held in it para 43 as under :-

“Proceedings before the National Commission are although

judicial proceedings, yet at the same time, it is not a Civil Court

within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may have

all the trappings of a Civil Court yet it cannot be called a Civil

Court.”

In Ethopian Airlines (supra) also relied upon by the present contemnor in

context of Section 86 CPC while considering the nature of proceeding before

Consumer Redressal Forum and Commissions, held in its para 66 as under :-

4

“ In particular CPC specifically refers to the District Courts, the

High Court and the Supreme Court and makes little if any

reference to other quasi judicial fora like the Consumer

redressal bodies at issue here”.

In Union Bank of India Vs. Madras Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC

1 a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court holding Consumer forum to be a

Statutory Tribunal created under a statute made an attempt to make a fine

distinction between the tribunals and courts in its para 45 as under :-

“45. Though both courts and tribunals exercise judicial power

and discharge similar functions, there are certain well-

recognised differences between courts and tribunals. They are:

(i) Courts are established by the State and are entrusted with the

State's inherent judicial power for administration of justice in

general. Tribunals are established under a statute to adjudicate

upon disputes arising under the said statute, or disputes of a

specified nature. Therefore, all courts are tribunals. But all

tribunals are not courts.

(ii) Courts are exclusively manned by Judges. Tribunals can

have a Judge as the sole member, or can have a combination of

a judicial member and a technical member who is an 'expert' in

the field to which the tribunal relates. Some highly specialised

fact-finding tribunals may have only technical members, but they

are rare and are exceptions.

(iii) While courts are governed by detailed statutory procedural

rules, in particular the Code of Civil Procedure and the

Evidence Act, requiring an elaborate procedure in decision

making, tribunals generally regulate their own procedure

applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure only

where it is required, and without being restricted by the strict

rules of the Evidence Act.”

It is thus seen that the context in which the aforementioned decisions of

Vishwa Bharti House Building Cooperative Society, Malay Kumar

Ganguly, Ethopian Airlines and Madras Bar Association were rendered by

the Supreme Court, it was considering therein the question as to whether

Consumer Forum and Commissions could be termed as 'Court' in its strict sense,

within the meaning of Civil Procedure Code.

In Canara Bank Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., 1995

Supplementary 3 SCC 81 in its para 26 of the report observed as under:-

“ 26. In our view, the word `court' must be read in the context in

5

which it is used in a statute. It is permissible, given the context,

to read it as comprehending the courts of civil judicature and

courts or some tribunals exercising curial, or judicial powers.”

In Bharat Bank Limited Delhi Vs. Employees of Bharat Bank, AIR

1950 Supreme Court 188, a five member Bench of Supreme Court, while

dealing with the question whether an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the

Industrial Tribunal Disputes Act 1947 was a Court for the purpose of Article

136 of the Constitution of India observed that Industrial Tribunal has all the

trappings of the court. To be more pertinent it was observed in para 7 of his

judgement by Fazal Ali, J. one the of the members as under:

“ Now, there can be no doubt that the industrial tribunal has, to

use a well known expression 'all the trappings of a court' and

performs functions which cannot but be regarded as judicial. This

is evident from the rules by which the proceedings before the

tribunal, are regulated. It appears that the proceeding before it

commences on an application which in many respects is in the

nature of a plaint. It has the same powers as are vested in a Civil

Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit, in

respect of discovery, - inspection, granting adjournment,

reception of evidence taken on affidavit, enforcing the attendance

of witnesses; compelling the production of documents, issuing

commissions, etc. It is to be deemed to be a Civil Court within the.

meaning of Ss. 480 and 482, Criminal P.C. 1898. It may admit

and call for evidence at any stage of the proceeding and has the

power to administer oaths. The parties appearing before it have

the right of examination, cross examination and re-examination

and of addressing it after all evidence has been called. A party

may also be represented by a- legal practitioner with its

permission.”

In P. Sarthy Vs. S.B.I. (2000)5 SCC 355, the Supreme Court was of the

view that the term 'court' in Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 meant any

authority or tribunal having the trappings of a Court.

In Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu (1992) Supplementary 2 SCC 651,

a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that all the tribunals may not be

courts, but all courts are tribunals.

In Ram Narayan Vs. Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd., AIR

6

1956 SC 614, the Supreme Court held that a tribunal, which exercised

jurisdiction for executing a decree would be a 'court' for the purpose of the

Banking Companies Act.

In Brijnandan Sinha Vs. Jyoti Narayan, AIR 1956, Supreme Court

66 considering the question whether a Commissioner appointed under the

Public Servant ( Enquiries ) Act 1850 was a Court within the meaning of

Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1952, which is forerunner of the

present Section 10 of the Act, it was held by the Supreme Court that in order to

constitute a court in strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the

court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal,

power to give a decision or a definitive judgement, which has finality and

authoritativeness, which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement.

In Virendra Kumar Satyawadi Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956,

Supreme Court 153, a Bench consisting of three other learned Judges of

Supreme Court presided over by Hon'ble B.K.Mukherjea, Chief Justice, while

examining the question as to whether returning officer deciding on the vailidity

of the nomination papers under Section 36(2) of the Representation of People

Act, 1951 was a court within the meaning of Section 193 IPC laid down as

under:

“ that what distinguishes a Court from quasi judicial tribunal is

that it is charged with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial

manner and declare the rights of parties in a definitive

judgement. To decide in a judicial manner involves that the

parties are entitled as a matter of right to be heard in support of

their claim and to adduced evidence in proof of it. And it also

imports an obligation on the part of the authority to decide the

matter of a consideration of evidence adduced and in

accordance with law. When a question therefore arises as to

whether an authority created by an Act is a Court as

distinguished by quasi judicial tribunal, what has to be decided

is whether having regard to the provisions of the Act possess all

the attributed of the Court.”

In Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha Vs. Sitamarhi, Central Cooperative

7

Bank Limited, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1494, the question that arose for

consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether the Assistant

Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, an authority under the Bihar and Orissa

Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 was a Court for the purposes of Contempt of

Courts Act 1952. In the light of the ratio of its previous decisions rendered in

Bharat Bank's case, Brijnandan Sinha's case and Virendra Kumar's case, it was

held by the Supreme Court therein as under:-

“that to determine whether statutory authority was functioning

as a Court, the provisions of the statute concerned have to be

looked into”.

After examining the provisions of the Act and the powers, duties and

functions of the Assistant Registrar therein, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decision of Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha reached to a conclusion that the

Assistant Registrar in adjudicating upon a dispute rendered under Section 48 of

the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act 1935 for all intents and

purposes was a Court discharging the same functions and duties in the same

manner as a Court of law is expected to do.

In K.Shamrao Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner ( 2003) 3 SCC

563, the Supreme Court held Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed under

Section 5 Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 ( as applicable to Karnataka ), to be a

'Court' for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

In Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. Universal Exports and

another (2011) 10 SCC 316, Apex Court made a strenuous effort to find out

the meaning of term 'Court' as given in various renowned dictionaries.

Therein it was observed by the Apex Court that in Oxford Advance Learner

Dictionary (8

th

Edition) it has been defined as “ the place where legal trials

take place and where crimes, etc, are judged ”. According to Oxford

Thesaurus of English (3

rd

Edition ) its synonyms are as under : “ Court of Law,

8

Law Court, Bench, Bar, Court of Justice, Judicature, Tribunal, Forum,

Chancery, Assizes, Courtroom”. The Chamber's Dictionary ( 10

th

Edition) has

described a court as “ a body of person assembled to decide causes”. In Straud's

Judicial Dictionary (5

th

Edition), the word court has been described as “ a place

where justice is judicially ministered, and is derived” and is further observed, “

but such a matter involves a judicial act, which may be brought up on

certiorari”.

In the aforesaid decision of Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs.

Universal Exports and another a question had cropped up before the Supreme

Court as to whether National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act

was a court. This question was to be decided by the Supreme Court in the

context of the Carriage Air Act, 1972 and the Warsaw Convention of 1929.

After a careful consideration of aforementioned dictionary meanings of the

term ' court' and its earlier decisions rendered in Union of India Vs. Madras

Bar Association (2010) 11 SCC 1, Bharat Bank Limited Vs. Employees

(supra), Brijendra Sinha Vs. Jyoti Narayan (supra) and and Canara Bank

Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and others,(1995)

Supplementary 3 SCC 81 the supreme court observed as under :

“The above dictionary meaning and decision of this Court in the

case of Canara Bank and also the observations of the

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Madras Bar

Association reveal that word “Court” must be understood in the

context of a body that is constituted in order to settle disputes

and decide rights and liabilities of the parties before it. “Courts”

are those bodies that bring about resolutions to disputes between

persons. As already mentioned, this Court has held that the

Tribunal and Commissions do not fall under the definition of

'Court'. However, in some situations, the word “Court” may be

used in a wide, generic sense and not in a narrow and pedantic

sense, and must, in those cases, be interpreted thus.”

In State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building

Cooperative Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412, the Supreme Court took the view that

9

by virtue of Section 25 and Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act there is a

legal fiction created in giving tribunals like the Consumer Forum, the powers of

a Court.

Taking into account its aforesaid decision rendered in State of Karnataka

Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society and several others

decisions, the Supreme Court in Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs.

Universal Exports and another (supra) bringing Consumer Forums and

Commissions established under Consumer Protection Act (referred to as CP

Act) within the sweep and ambit of 'Court' in context of Carriage Air Act,

1972 (referred to as CA Act ) and Warsaw Convention reached to a further

conclusion as under:-

“ The use of the word “Court” in Rule 29 of the Second Schedule

of the CA Act has been borrowed from the Warsaw Convention.

We are of the view that the word “Court” has not been used in

the strict sense in the Convention as has come to be in our

procedural law. The word “Court” has been employed to mean a

body that adjudicates a dispute arising under the provisions of

the CP Act. The CP Act gives the District Forums, State Forums

and National Commission the power to decide disputes of

consumers. The jurisdiction, the power and procedure of these

Forums are all clearly enumerated by the CP Act. Though, these

Forums decide matters after following a summary procedure,

their main function is still to decide disputes, which is the main

function and purpose of a Court. We are of the view that for the

purpose of the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention, the

Consumer Forums can fall within the meaning of the expression

“Court” ”

In view of the aforesaid decisions, it thus becomes clear that the word

'court' used in the Act cannot be interpreted in its narrow and pedantic sense as a

Court or Civil Court in its strict sense but has to be interpreted in its wide

generic sense providing a greater conspectus to its meaning. We in the present

matter are therefore not concerned as to whether Consumer Forum in their

precise nature are courts or quasi judicial bodies or authorities or agencies but

what we are concerned about is as to whether in the context of Section 10 of

10

Contempt of Courts Act 1971, they are exercising their main functions as a

Court or in other words are having 'the trappings of a Court'. In case these

forums are exercising their judicial power akin to that of a Court, there is no

reason not to treat them a Court in the context of Section 10 of contempt of

Courts Act 1971.

In order that an authority exercising a judicial authority, can be termed to

be having 'the trappings of a Court' following tests must be satisfied by such

authority:-

(i) Nature of power exercised by the authority. The power entrusted to

the authority must be judicial power of the State meaning thereby, the authority

must be enjoined to adjudicate between the parties. There must be a lis between

the contesting parties presented before the authority for adjudication and

decision.

(ii) The source of the power must emanate from the statute and must not

be based merely on agreement between the parties. The power must statutorily

flow and must continue to inhere in the authority subject to the limitation

engrafted by the statute conferring such power.

(iii) The manner of exercise of power must partake of essential attributes

of 'Court'.

(iv) The resultant or end product of the exercise of such power by the

authority must result in a binding decision between the parties concluding the lis

between the parties so far as the authority is concerned. The said decision must

be definitive and must have finality and authoritativeness.

In the light of the aforesaid tests let us now consider the relevant

statutory scheme of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which its authorities

function.

11

The statement of objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act

1986 enumerates its necessity to provide better protection of the interest of

consumers. The salient feature of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the

CP Act are as under:

“1. The CP Act aims to protect the interests of the consumers and

provide for speedy resolutions of their disputes with regard to

defective goods or deficiency of service. The Statement of Objects

and Reasons of the CP Act are as under:

The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better

protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to

make provision for the establishment of Consumer councils and

other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for

matter connected therewith.

2. It further seeks, inter alia, to promote and protect the rights of

consumers such as -

(a) the right to be protected against marketing of goods which

are hazardous to life and property;

(b) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency,

purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer

against unfair trade practices;

(c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to an

authority of goods at competitive prices;

(d) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers

interest will receive due consideration at appropriate forums;

(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or

unscrupulous exploitations of consumers; and

(f) right to consumer education.

3. These objects are sought to be promoted and protected by the

Consumer Protection Council to be established at the Central

and State level.

4. To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes,

a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district,

State and Central levels. These quasi- judicial bodies will

observe the principles of natural justice and have been

empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award,

wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for

non- compliance of the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies

have also been provided. ”

12

The relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act that are required to

be noticed for answering the question before us are Sections 2, 7, 9, 10,11, 12,

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 24B, 25, 27 and 27A.

Section 2 contains definitions wherein amongst others definition of

complainant, consumer and consumed disputes have been provided.

Section 7 of the said Act provides a constitution of the State Consumer

Protection Council to promote and protect within the State, the rights of the

consumers with the objects as quoted (supra).

Section 9 provides for establishment of the consumer dispute redressal

agencies making provision for establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum known as District Forum to be established by the State Government in

each district and also making provision for a Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission known as State Commission by every State Government and for

making a further provision for a establishment of a National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission to be established by the Central Government.

Section 10 provides composition of a District Forum, which is to be

headed by a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge and

consist of two other members.

Section 11 provides pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.

Section 12 provides the manner in which a complaint has to be made

before the District Forum.

Section 13 lays down the mode and manner in which complaint received

by the District Forum are required to be dealt with. Its Sub-section 3 requires

that every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour

shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of notice by opposite party, where the complaint does not require

13

analysis or testing of commodities and within five months where analysis or

testing of commodities are required. Its Sub-section 3(B), 4 and 5 requires

special attention because of which they are being reproduced as under:-

“(3B) Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the

District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such

interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall

have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of the

following matters, namely:—

(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any

defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath;

(ii) the discovery and production of any document or other

material object producible as evidence;

(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits;

(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or

test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant

source;

(v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any

witness, and

(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(5) Every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed

to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193

and 228 of the Indian Code (45 of 1860), and the District Forum

shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section

195, and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(2 of 1974). ”

Section 14 provides for the directions, which can be issued by the District

Forum arriving at a satisfaction of the allegations contained in the complaint

about the defects in goods or the deficiency in service.

Section 15 provides for an appeal from the order made by the District

forum to the State Commission.

Section 16 provides for composition of the State Commission. According

14

to which it has to be presided by a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High

Court appointed by the State Government. Its also has to consist of two other

members.

Section 17 provides for the jurisdiction of the State Commission

including its pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

Section 19 provides for an appeal from a decision of the State

Commission to the National Commission.

Section 20 deals with the composition of the National Commission. It is

to be headed by a President, who would be a person who is, or has been, Judge

of the Supreme Court and appointed by the Central Government in consultation

with the Chief Justice of India and also having other members not less then four

in number.

Section 21 provides for jurisdiction of the National Commission

including its pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

Section 23 provides for a limited appeal to the Supreme Court from an

order made by the National Commission i.e. when the same is made in exercise

of its original power as conferred by Special Clause (i) of Clause (A) of Section

21.

Section 24 speaks about the finality of orders. According to it every

order of a District Forum, State Commission or National Commission shall, if

no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of the said

Act be final.

Section 24(B) provides for the administrative control of the National

Commission over all the State Commission in certain matters and about the

administrative control of State Commission over all its District for a within its

jurisdiction in those certain matters.

15

Section 25 provides power of attachment of the property, awarding of

damages and for issuing a certificate of any amount due from any person under

an order made by District Forum, State Commission or the National

Commission through Collector to recover the said amount in the same manner

as arrears of land revenue.

Section 27 provides for penalties. Its Subsection (1), (2) and (3) are as

under:-

“ Penalties. — (1) Where a trader or a person against whom a

complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply

with any order made by the District Forum, the State

Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be,

such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with

imprisonment 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 thousands rupees but which may extend to ten

thousand rupees, or with both:

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State

Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be,

shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for

the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of

powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the

National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers

are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of

the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the

District Forum or the State Commission or the National

Commission, as the case may be.”

Section 27(A) provides appeal against order passed under Section 27.

So far as the first test of nature of power exercised by Consumer

Protection authorities is concerned, it is evident from the aforesaid statutory

scheme that the authorities are to exercise compulsory judicial power of the

State so as to adjudicate disputes between the parties i.e. Consumers and traders/

Service Providers. These authorities are entrusted to determine the lis between

the parties in a judicial manner. As regards the second test, it is also clear from

16

the aforesaid scheme that the authority and power to adjudicate upon the lis

between the parties are entrusted to the authorities therein by the Act and not by

the appropriate Government. Thus the source of power to adjudicate so far as

these quasi judicial authorities are concerned is none other than the statute itself.

The Forums & Commissions are clearly the creatures of the statute invested

with the power to exercise the judicial power of the State.

As regards the third test the statutory scheme itself indicates that all the

relevant trappings of a 'court' are available to the authorities while deciding a lis

between the parties. While Section 13 specifically empowers the authorities to

act like any other Civil Court in respect of certain matters. Section 25 & 27

provides teeth to the authorities for getting their orders executed and imposing

fines in case of default by a party to the lis. It is also clear from the said scheme

that in order to resolve a lis the authorities are to follow a judicial procedure of

adjudication which is one of the essential attributes of a Court.

Lastly coming to the fourth test relating to the resultant or end produce, it

is clear from the provisions of Section 24 that the authorities enjoin finality of

their orders. The orders passed by them attaining finality becomes binding

between the parties.

In view of the above, we are of the view that although a District Forum

exercising judicial function under the Consumer Protection Act is not a Court

within the strict sense of a 'Court' but due to having all the trappings of a

'Court' is a 'Court' in the context of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The first question involved for our consideration is thus decided in

affirmative.

As regards the second question involved in the matter, it will be

appropriate to peruse the relevant provisions contained in Article 227 of the

17

Constitution of India, which read is as under :-

“ 227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High

Court.-

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts

and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it

exercises jurisdiction .

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing

provision, the High Court may-

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for

regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be

kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to

the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to

attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled

under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the

provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require

the previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High

Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal

constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces. ”

It can thus be noticed that except for the Court or Tribunal constituted by

or under any law relating to the Armed Forced all Courts or Tribunals lying

within the jurisdiction of a High Court will be covered by the general power of

superintendence of that High Court.

In S. K. Sarkar Vs. Vinay Chandra, AIR 1981 SC 723: 1981 Cr.L.J.

283, a question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether a Board of

Revenue functioning under the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act

was a court subordinate to the High Court as contemplated by Section 10 of the

Contempts of Courts Act 1971, whose contempt can be taken cognizance of by

the High Court. The Supreme Court observed as follows:-

“ The phrase “ courts subordinate to it” used in Section 10 is wide enough to

include above courts, who are judicially subordinate to the High Court, even

18

though administrative control over them under Article 235 of the Constitution

does not vest in the High Court. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High

Court has the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunal throughout

the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The court of Revenue

Board, therefore, in the instant case, is a court “subordinate to the High Court”

within the contemplation of Section 10 of the Act.”

It will also be appropriate to have a perusal of Rule 4B of the Chapter III

of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as amended upto date under which

allocation of executive and administrative work has been made by the Allahabad

High Court for its Administrative Judges each of whom has been assigned the

charge of one or more sessions division for a period of one year by its Chief

Justice. In the matters listed therein for Administrative Judges matter no.1 reads

as under:-

“1. Review of judicial work of Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, District

Consumer Forums and all other Special Courts and control of their working

including inspection thereof, to record entries in the character rolls of the

officers posted in the division assigned to the Administrative Judge.”

(Emphasis supplied by us)

It appears that the above rule by which an Administrative Judge has been

empowered to make a review of judicial work or to make inspection of District

Forum lying within the Sessions Division assigned to him has been framed by

its framers keeping in mind the High Courts' general power of superintendence

over all the courts and tribunals given to it under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.

The aforesaid rule also thus lends support to the view that the Court of

Consumer Forum and Commissions lying within the territorial jurisdiction of a

19

High Court are subordinate to the High Court so far as its general power of

superintendence over them as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is concerned.

In view of the above we are of the firm view that a High Court has the

power of superintendence also over the District Consumer Forums and

Commissions lying within its territorial jurisdiction and that being so such

District Consumer Forums and Commissions established under the Consumer

Protection Act are also covered within the ambit and scope of “courts

subordinate to the High Court” in the context of Section 10 of the Contempts of

Courts Act 1971.

The second question involved for our consideration is also thus decided

in affirmative.

In view of the above discussion we find that the preliminary objection

raised by the contemnor about non maintainability of the present contempt

proceeding has no force and as such is rejected.

Let the case be listed in the next cause list for further orders.

Order Date: 10 /09 /2012

Abhishek Sri

(Ashok Pal Singh, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)