The case record is taken up today for passing order. The Complainant filed the instant complaint against the District and sessions Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampore as OP No.1, The Civil Judge, Jr. Division First Court at Berhampore - cum- the Judge-in-charge, Copying Department as OP No.2 and Chief Examiner ( Head Comparing Clerk)- Cum- Chief Ministerial Officer, Copying Department, District Head Quarter, District and Sessions Judges’ Court, Murshidabad as OP No.3 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The facts of the case is that on 20.06.24, the Complainant applied for urgent certified copy with the OP No.3 and the application was duly registered by the OP No.3 on 20.06.24 and the certified copies were delivered on 2nd August, 2024 for which the Complainant suffered from partial loss of reputation, mental agony and economic deprivation. It is specifically alleged by the Complainant that due to inefficient/negligent management and deliberate negligence on the part of the OPs he suffered from partial loss of reputation, mental agony and economic deprivation. The Complainant cited a decision of Shri Prabhakar Vtankoba Aadone VS Superintendent, Civil Court on 8 July, 2002. In the cited decision, the District Forum by its order dated 16.02.1998 allowed the complaint CC No. 15/95 and directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 250/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs. 250/- towards costs. The Respondent filed appeal No. 532/1998 before the State Commission, Maharashtra. On the date of the hearing of the appeal, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent was present. Nevertheless the State Commission by its order dated 19.07.2000 allowed the appeal holding that : ‘’The Appellant being a Government Agency was exercising sovereign function and any deficiency in service, assuming there are, are not amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer fora functioning under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To be precise, the duties being discharged were under the sovereign functions and are immune therefrom.’’ Thereafter the Complainant filed the petition before the Hon’ble Commission U/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon’ble Commission made the following observations: ‘’The grant of certified copies of order of courts is not a sovereign function but is an administrative function. Since this is not a judicial function, it does not partake the character of a ‘sovereign function’. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that an applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a ‘’Consumer’’ within the meaning of the act and the proceeding of such application and the preparation and delivery of the copy in consideration of the copying charges/fee by the concerned staff attached to the court would be a service within the meaning of the Act. In the light of the above discussion, we cannot sustain the impugned order which is hereby set aside. The order of the District Forum is upheld. In the peculiar facts of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Before parting with we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Murlidharan, the amicus curiae appointed in this case.’’ In the cited decision, concerned staff attached to the Court was the OP but in the instant case, the District and Sessions Judge and one Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) have been made party. In the definition of ‘Consumer’ the word ‘consideration’ has been used. We acquainted with the word ‘consideration’ for the first time in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is the basic concept of the Contract Act that no consideration no contract. Such being the position, it can be said that contract follows consideration and consideration follows contract. In the instant case, the Complainant fails to establish that the court fee/fee paid by him is the consideration and there is a contractual relation between him and the OPs. Here we find that the facts and circumstances of the cited decision are not similar to those of the instant case. The Supreme Court in Government of Madras V Zenith Lamps and Om Prakash Awarwal V Giri Raj Kishori, held that there must be a broad co-relationship with the fees collected and the cost of administration of justice. The Court has observed that ‘while a tax invariably goes into the consolidated fund, a fee is earmarked for the specified services in a fund created for the purpose’. However, it cannot be disputed that compulsory exaction of money is common in both tax and fee. They are imposed under the taxing power of the State, whereas to take the advantage of the privileges offered by the State one has to pay the fees fixed by the State under the statute. There is no question of any negotiation or bargaining of the fees because fees are also statutory levy for obtaining privilege or service offered by the State. In State of Gujarat V Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, the Complainant alleged that though the State is collecting full court fees under the provisions of Bombay Court Fees Act, the Sate is neither providing adequate number of courts and also the State is not appointing judges on the posts already created and on account of both these defaults, the cases are not being taken up for number of years with the result litigants are not getting justice in time and are suffering. The Complainant contended that the court fees which has been paid by the civil litigants is nothing but the amount paid for hiring of services, i.e., it is consideration for the service, and dispensation of justice by judge is rendering of services to the civil litigants. The Gujarat State Commission observed that the State is exercising its sovereign function of providing justice to the citizens and others which is not contractual; and that the court fees levied by the State is not a consideration as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. A court fee is imposed under the taxing power of the State. The Complainant cannot have any contract or negotiation. If he wants to avail the privilege offered by the State, he has to pay the court fees prescribed, and if it is more he can challenge the levy, but it will not amount to deficiency of service within the meaning of the Act. Section 3 of the The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 may be quoted here: Additional protection to Judges.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge. In view of the matters discussed above, the instant complaint cannot be entertained. Hence, it is Ordered that the instant complaint i.e. CC No.69/2024 is not entertained. The instant complaint is thus disposed of. Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to the Complainant/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action. The Final Order will also be available in the following Website: confonet.nic.in Dictated & corrected by me. President Member President | 
