Karnataka High Court
Sri K L Ramamohan vs The Joint Registrar Of Co ... on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
WA No. 1053 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2022 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K L RAMAMOHAN
S/O LAKSHMIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT B H ROAD,
TUMKUR 572101.
Digitally
signed by R
DEEPA ...APPELLANT
Location: High (BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Court of
Karnataka SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY R V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.
SOCIETIES NO.1,
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560052.
2. THE SECRETARY/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI VINAYAKA SOUHARDA PATTINA
SAHAKARI NIYAMAITHA,
TUMKUR.
-2-
WA No. 1053 of 2022
3. SRI B N PUTTANARASA REDDY
S/O B N NARAYANA REDDY,
EX PRESIDENT,
SRI VINAYAKA SOUHARDA PATTINA
SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA, TUMKUR,
R/AT 12TH CROSS,
S.I.T. TUMKUR.
4. SMT K S SOWMYA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
EX-SECRETARY / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SRI VINAYAKA SOUHARDA PATTINA,
SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA, TUMKUR.
R/AT NEAR SECRET HEART COLLEGE,
UPPARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
UPAPRAHALLI, TUMKUR 572102.
5. SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O BOMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDALINGESHWARA KRUPA,
T.P.KAILASAM ROAD,
2ND CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI NAGARA,
TUMKUR 572102.
6. K G RUDRESHAIAH
S/O LATE K R GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT RUDRSHWARA KRUPA,
MAHALASKHI NAGARA,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR 572103.
7. SMT RAJESHWARI
W/O K G RUDRESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT RUDRESHWARA KRUPA,
MAHALAKSHI NAGARA,
BATAWADI, TUMKUR 572103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1)
-3-
WA No. 1053 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
28.09.2022 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 17806/2022 BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant at length.
2. The appeal challenges the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 28.09.2022 in W.P.No.17806/2022.
The order passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Tumkur dated 21.01.2022 in CC
No.51 to 53 of 2021 was the subject matter of the writ
petition.
3. The learned Single Judge on submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7
as well as learned Additional Government Advocate
namely that there is an alternate remedy available to the
petitioner in the form of a statutory appeal provided under
WA No. 1053 of 2022
Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short
'the Act'), thought it fit to relegate the petitioner to the
statutory appeal forum and accordingly by observing that
the Court is brought in animate with the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent
that the writ petition was disposed of reserving the liberty
to the petitioner to call the impugned orders in question
before the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge
also protected the petitioners by the observation that to
facilitate availment of appeal remedy, the impugned order
is kept in suspended animation for a period of three
weeks. Similarly any coercive orders like NBW, etc., are
also put in suspended animation for the same period. By
keeping the contentions open the learned Single Judge
disposed the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently submitted that in view of peculiar facts,
namely, when the dispute was presented before the
consumer forum, the same ought not to have been
WA No. 1053 of 2022
entertained by the forum as the dispute suffered from
various aspects, such as non-joining of the necessary
parties. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the provisions of the Karnataka
Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and particularly, Section 31
makes a binding effect of a dispute to be presented only
through the Chief Executive or the Chief Administrative
Officer to the Registrar for the decision as per Section 39
and the Society was not at all party before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur. As
such, the District Forum ought not to have entertained the
dispute at all. Now even assuming that the petitioner
raised a challenge to the maintainability of the dispute
submitted before the consumer forum. Even such ground
of maintainability or the ground that the forum heard in
entertaining the dispute can be a ground before the
Appellate Forum to challenge the order passed by the
Consumer Forum at the District level.
WA No. 1053 of 2022
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
though vehemently relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS.
REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI & ORS., reported in
(1998) 8 SCC 1 and though it cannot be disputed on the
proposition as referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The
Hon'ble Apex Court again in its latest judgments i.e., in
the matter of THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
VS. GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED reported in AIR 2022
SUPREME COURT 4408 was pleased to observe that if no
valid reasons are shown to by-pass the statutory remedy
of appeal relegating parties to avail the remedy of
statutory appeal cannot be found fault with.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the judgment
of the STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (SUPRA).in para No.8 that
this Court has consistently taken the view that when there
is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence
demands that the court refrains from exercising its
jurisdiction under constitutional provisions. Now, in the
WA No. 1053 of 2022
judgment of the STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (SUPRA), it may
not be out of the list to secure that the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION (SUPRA),
the attention of the Hon'ble Apex Court was invited to the
judgment in the matter of WHIRLPOOL Corporation
(SUPRA). Similarly, in another latest decision i.e., in the
case of PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED VS VISHWA BHARATI
VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 5 SCC
345, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the same view.
7. At the cost of repetition, we state that in these
judgments also the reference was made to WHIRLPOOL
Corporation (SUPRA) and the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the word of caution by referring the
observations in the matter of SATYAWATI TONDON , and it
is observed in para No.10 in SATYAWATI TONDON it was
observed and held that the remedy available to an
aggrieved person against the action taken under Section
13(4) or Section 14 of the SURFAESI ACT, by way of
appeal under Section 17, can be said to be both
WA No. 1053 of 2022
expeditious and effective. On maintainability of or
entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in a case where the effective remedy
is available to the aggrieved person, it is observed and
held that in the said decision in paras 43 to 46 as under:
"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked
the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily
not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person and that this rule applies
with greater rigour in matters involving recovery
of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money
and the dues of banks and other financial
institutions. In our view, while dealing with the
petitions involving challenge to the action taken
for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High
Court must keep in mind that the legislations
enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for
recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves
inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive
procedure for recovery of the dues but also
envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for
redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved
person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High
Court must insist that before availing remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person
WA No. 1053 of 2022
must exhaust the remedies available under the
relevant statute.
44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we
are conscious that the powers conferred upon the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, directions,
orders or writs including the five prerogative writs
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide
and there is no express limitation on exercise of
that power but, at the same time, we cannot be
oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint
evolved by this Court, which every High Court is
bound to keep in view while exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(Emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the above referred facts and
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are unable to
find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. In
our opinion, the appeal is devoid of any merit and as such,
deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
- 10 -
WA No. 1053 of 2022
9. As the appellant was before this Court by
presenting the appeal, the protection granted by the
learned Single Judge to the appellant to be in force for a
period of three weeks from today, in case no action is
already initiated by the respondents.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSB
