Anantha Charan Das vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1176 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               W.P.(C) No.36033 of 2021
                               (Through hybrid mode)

            Anantha Charan Das                      ....            Petitioner

                                                    Mr. G.Mishra, Advocate
                                         -versus-

            State of Odisha and others              ....      Opposite Parties

                                                         Mr. P.C. Panda,AGA


                     CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

                                       ORDER

Order No.                             09.02.2022

  01.       1.      Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, his client wants appropriate orders directing opposite

party no.2 (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhubaneswar)

to dispose of C.D. Case no.201 of 2019.

2. He submits further, order dated 6th August, 2012 of the

Supreme Court in SLP (C) no.24228 - 24229 of 2002 (Cicily

Kallarackal) cannot be applied in preventing this Court from

exercising writ jurisdiction.

3. This Bench by order dated 15th December, 2021 in W.P.(C)

no.32749 of 2021 (Balimela Hydro Electric Project (Unit of Odisha

Hydro Power Corporation Ltd.) vs. District Consumer Redressal

// 2 //

Commission and another has already held that the High Court is

bound by the caution in Cicily Kallarackal (supra) and will not

entertain the writ petition. By Cicily Kallarackal (supra) the Supreme

Court declared that since appeal lies to it from order of the National

Commission, writ petitions should not be entertained by the High

Courts and accordingly the caution issued. The other appellate

authority, provided by the statute, is not a Court. Law declared therein

appears to be, because the statute (Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

provides that the Supreme Court is the first appellate Court, the High

Courts were cautioned against exercising constitutional writ

jurisdiction against the National Commission. There was no exception

made that the District or State Commissions would be subject to

judicial review by the High Courts under articles 226 and 227 but not

the National Commission. Hence, the caution applies and though the

High Courts have constitutional writ jurisdiction but judgment law of

the Supreme Court bars exercise of the same in respect of matters

arising out of operation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

4. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant