Summary
Answering a reference concerning development-authority charges, the Court held that statutory status or the statutory origin of a fee does not by itself exclude consumer jurisdiction. Charges for services may be examined for deficiency in service, while core sovereign functions and general fiscal exactions stand on a different footing. HUDA v. Sunita was overruled, and the petitions were directed to an appropriate Bench for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether consumer fora can examine statutory charges connected with deficient services.
- Whether HUDA v. Sunita correctly excluded jurisdiction over composition and extension fees.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The broad definitions of deficiency and service extend to qualifying services rendered by statutory authorities for consideration. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14, 15)
Held
- The relevant test is the nature of the function and the consumer-service relationship. Core sovereign functions are excluded, but commercial or welfare services and severable service-providing units may fall within the Act when its requirements are met. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 16)
- Consumer fora may evaluate the legality of service-related exactions and whether conditions for charging them were fulfilled. A challenge to the vires of the fee-prescribing rule belongs before constitutional courts. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- General taxes and cess are distinguished from statutory fees charged for services. Only exactions connected with a qualifying service and an alleged deficiency attract the jurisdiction discussed; statutory origin alone is not decisive. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 22)
- Sunita failed to consider earlier authority and the statutory objects; its categorical exclusion of jurisdiction over the statutory dues in question was overruled. (¶ 22)
Result
The reference was answered. The special leave petitions were directed to be placed before an appropriate Bench, after obtaining orders from the Chief Justice of India, for consideration on merits.