Item No.19
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.P.No.14169 of 2019
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners
was directed to examine a recent judgment of the Supreme Court on
the aspect of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, when the petitioners have an equally efficacious
alternative remedy of assailing the impugned order dated 14.11.2018,
passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission before
the Appellate Authority.
2. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has
perused the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4127 of 2021 entitled Mehra Bal
Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu I.C.U v. Manoj Upadhyay and
others and submits the facts of the case noticed in the said judgment
would be distinguishable to the instant case. He submits that in
Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu I.C.U (supra), the writ
petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging the legality and
validity of the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dated 08.01.2020 whereby,
the revision petition filed by the petitioners therein was dismissed and
the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was
W.P.No.14169 of 2019 Page 1 of 3
upheld. He states that since the writ petitioners had the option of
approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redresssal
Commission, the Supreme Court has made the observation relating to
the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the petitioners before
the High Court. But, in the instant case, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 14.11.2018, passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the petitioner's complaint
for non-prosecution and the said order is not appealable under Section
19 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act').
Therefore, the petitioners are left remediless and are well entitled to
approach the court by filing the present writ petition.
3. Per contra, Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3 cites on Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act
wherein, the State Commission is empowered to entertain complaints relating to value of goods or services exceeding Rs.20,00,000/- but below Rs.1.00 crore. He states that the complaint of the petitioners in the instant case was for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and an appeal under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable in respect of the powers exercised by the State Commission under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 17(1) of the Act. Instead of exercising the right of preferring an appeal under Section 19 of the Act within the time stipulated, the petitioners have filed the present misconceived petition. In other words, the argument of an equally efficacious remedy is still W.P.No.14169 of 2019 Page 2 of 3 available to the respondents and it was on the aforesaid plea that the Supreme Court had made the observations that it did in Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu I.C.U (supra).
4. When the analogy in the aforesaid case is applied to the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the petitioners do have the remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 19 of the Act against the impugned order of dismissal of their complaint for non-prosecution, which they have failed to exercise. We are therefore of the opinion that the present petition as filed, is not maintainable.
5. The present petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications, if any, with liberty granted to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies as may be available to them in law.
______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 10.08.2021 JSU/PLN W.P.No.14169 of 2019 Page 3 of 3