Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1363 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of complaint - availability of alternative remedy - Jurisdiction - power of CDRC to entertain Ext. P1 application - appealable order or not - HELD THAT:- The contention of the petitioners that the writ court can entertain a Writ Petition in certain circumstances even if there is an alternative remedy is a settled position. This is the principle laid down by the Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS. [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT]. Even though the Apex Court observed that in certain contingencies, this Court can entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can use its discretion either to entertain such Writ Petition or to reject it. Specific averments are necessary in the Writ Petition for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal when an appealable order is challenged by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Simply stating that the authority who passed the order has no jurisdiction alone is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, especially when the appellate authority also can consider the question of jurisdiction. Here is a case, where Ext. P5 is admittedly an appealable order. When there is a statutory remedy against Ext. P5 order as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Court need not entertain a Writ Petition unless there are compelling reasons. The petitioners are the University and its authorities. They can approach the State Commission, instead of filing a Writ Petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Nothing is mentioned in the Writ Petition which prevents the writ petitioners to move an appeal against Ext. P5 order before the State Commission except the contention that CDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 complaint. S.41 of the Act, 2019 deals with appeal against the order of the District Commission - Section 47(1)(b) says that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to interfere when it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. So the jurisdiction question also can be decided by the State Commission. Then what is the reason to file this Writ Petition before this Court is not clear. If the petitioners can engage a lawyer to file a Writ Petition in High Court, they can very well engage a lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram to file an appeal before the State Commission against Ext. P5. If this Court starts to entertain Writ Petition against orders of CDRC, there will not be any end to it. Writ Petition can be dismissed with the liberty to file an appeal against Ext. P5 order in accordance with law - petition dismissed.
|