S. No. 16 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 205/2023 CM (5320/2023) BASHIR AHMAD. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. B.A. Bashir, Sr. Advocate. Vs. SHEIKH ARSHAD AHMAD. ...Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 26.08.2025 1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined in Article 227 of the Constitution has been invoked by the petitioner herein for quashing of complaint titled as “Sheikh Arshad Ahmad v. Eye Care and Research Centre” being File No. 61/2017 dated 17/07/2023 pending before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar. 2. Facts emerging from the record reveals that a said complaint came to be instituted by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein before the Commission on the premise that while availing medical treatment of his mother in the Medical Centre of the petitioner herein on 19th October 2016 having reached thereon on his motorcycle and parked outside the Centre, the said motorcycle came to be stolen thereof, whereupon an FIR bearing No. 71/2016 came to be registered and that since the theft of the motorcycle had taken place place within the parking premises of the said Medical Centre of the petitioner herein, as such, the complainant deserves to be compensated by the petitioner herein against the theft of his motorcycle. 3. The petitioner herein being respondent in complaint contested the complaint on multiple grounds inasmuch as while raising a preliminary objection qua the locus standi of the complaint and the maintainability of the complaint on the premise that the complainant does not qualify to be as a “consumer” as per the definition provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and that there has been no parking premises of the Centre earmarked for parking of the vehicles/motorcycles of the patients/attendants who would come for availing medical treatment thereof but instead the same is a general road wherein the motorcycle was parked by the complainant/respondent and as such the complainant/respondent herein is not entitled to any compensation on any grounds. 4. 4. The Commission upon hearing the appearing counsel for the parties on the question of locus standi of the complainant- respondent herein raised by the counsel for the respondent/petitioner herein, in terms of the impugned order, however, held that the decision of the said question would rest upon the determination of dispute qua the questions of fact involved in the case and, as such, cannot be decided at threshold without affording an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and that the said plea shall be determined at the conclusion of the proceedings. 5. The said order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the Commission has been impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner herein, the question of locus standi urged by the petitioner before the Commission as also the maintainability of the complaint being a question going to the root of the case, in law, was bound to be dealt with in the first instance, however, the Commission having done otherwise has thus committed serious error necessitating the filing of instant petition. 7. Having regard to the nature of the preliminary objections raised before the Commission by the respondent-petitioner herein qua the locus standi of the complainant respondent herein inasmuch as the consequent maintainability of the complaint, the said question indisputably ought to have been adverted to in the first instance by the Commission having regard to the provisions of the Act of 2019 in general and the definition of the “consumer” and “consumer dispute” in particular provided therein. The said preliminary objection seemingly could have been addressed on the basis of the available material before the Commission as also in presence of the provisions of the Act in particular those referred in the preceeding paras. The Commission however, having not done so has indisputably grossly erred in law, as law which postulates that the question of locus standi/maintainability of the proceedings should be addressed in the first instance at the threshold. 8. Otherwise also a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Commission has passed the same in a casual and cryptic manner, rendering the same legally untenable. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed that too in absence of the respondent herein who has chosen not to appear despite passing of pre-emptive orders on two previous dates which orders provided that in the event the respondent does not appear and argue the matter, the matter shall be considered on its merits in his absence. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Commission with the direction to revisit and reconsider the question of locus standi/maintainability raised by the respondent petitioner herein and address to the said questions in the first instance before proceeding further in the matter. 11. The Parties to appear before the Commission on 8th of September, 2025. The Commission shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law and shall, before proceeding further in the matter, issue notice to the complainant-respondent herein. 12. Disposed of. 13. The Registry shall send down a copy of this order to the Commission for compliance. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 26.08.2025 Sabreena Rahim