HUDA versus VIDYA CHETAL

HUDA versus VIDYA CHETAL

The decision in HUDA v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479, holding that the NCDRC had no jurisdiction over questions relating to statutory dues/fees charged by statutory authorities, is incorrect and overruled. Statutory dues in the nature of a fee for a service may be questioned before Consumer Forums on grounds of 'deficiency in service', but vires of such fees must be challenged before Constitutional Courts. Consumer Forums have jurisdiction over complaints regarding deficiency in service by statutory authorities unless specifically excluded.

Parties
Petitioner: Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (now GLADA); Respondent: Vidya Chetal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Reference Decided; Case to Be Placed Before an Appropriate Bench for Merits
Outcome
Reference answered; law in HUDA v. Sunita overruled; special leave petitions to be placed before appropriate Bench for merits consideration.
Legal Topics
Deficiency in Service, Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums, Distinction Between Tax, Fee, And Statutory Dues, Housing Construction as Service
Consumer Protection Law Statutory Interpretation Deficiency in Service Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums Distinction Between Tax, Fee, and Statutory Dues Housing Construction as Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (now GLADA)

Petitioner

Vidya Chetal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Reference Decided; Case to Be Placed Before an Appropriate Bench for Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the law laid down in HUDA v. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479, denying jurisdiction of Consumer Forums over statutory dues, is valid
  2. 2 Whether statutory dues/fees charged by statutory authorities for services can be subject to Consumer Forum jurisdiction as 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The decision in HUDA v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479, holding that the NCDRC had no jurisdiction over questions relating to statutory dues/fees charged by statutory authorities, is incorrect and overruled. Statutory dues in the nature of a fee for a service may be questioned before Consumer Forums on grounds of 'deficiency in service', but vires of such fees must be challenged before Constitutional Courts. Consumer Forums have jurisdiction over complaints regarding deficiency in service by statutory authorities unless specifically excluded.

Court Disposition

Reference answered; law in HUDA v. Sunita overruled; special leave petitions to be placed before appropriate Bench for merits consideration.

Orders

  • Law laid down in HUDA v. Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479 overruled.
  • Instant special leave petitions be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.