Patna High Court
Mithilesh Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 8 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9803 of 2017
======================================================
Mithilesh Prasad S/o Late Raj Kishore Yadav Residence of Village - Devkuli,
P.S. P.O. - Makhdumpur, Dist - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Pushpa Sharma, Authorized dealer of Holland Tractor Om Shanti Enterprises
Near Dardha River P.G. R
3. Branch Manager, Bank of India, Serthua Railway Station Tehta, P.S. -
Makhdumpur, Dist - Jehanabad.
4. The Managing Director, Registered Office, New Hollan Fiat I Pvt. Ltd. 303,
Central Plaza, 166 C.S.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rashmi Kumari Mandilwar, Adv.
Mr. Nityanand Neeraj, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Giri- GP-9
Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Utpal, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-05-2025
1. The Writ petition is filed for the following
reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction to quash the
order dated 12/01/17 in Appeal No.
162/2015 passed by Bihar State
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bihar, Patna, whereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.9803 of 2017 dt.08-05-2025
and where under the appeal of the
petitioner is dismissed.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction to allow the
petitioner filing the supplementary
affidavit annexing the copy of the
complaint filed before the District
forum.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction granting any
other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is found entitled under
law.
2. During the course of arguments,
preliminary objections were raised by the Learned
counsel for the respondents, contending that the
matter arises out of an appeal pertaining to Bihar
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Bihar, Patna and the appropriate appellate authority
is the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi. However, without availing
the alternative remedy available under the
Consumer Protection Act, the present Writ petition
was filed and hence, it is not maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9803 of 2017 dt.08-05-2025
3. In support of his contentions, the Learned
counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CICILY KALLARACKAL
V. VEHICLE FACTORY reported in (2012) 8 SCC
524, wherein their lordships held at para nos. 3, 4
and 9 which are as follows:-
3. So far as the issue of
jurisdiction is concerned, the
learned counsel for the petitioner is
right that the High Court had no
jurisdiction to deal with the matter
against the order of the
Commission. However, while
dealing with a similar issue this
Court in Mohd. Swalleh v. Addl.
District Judge, Meerut observed:
(SCC p. 46, para 7)
"7. It was contended
before the High Court that no
appeal lay from the decision of the
prescribed authority to the District
Judge. The High Court accepted this
contention.... (sic no appeal lay)...
On that ground the High Court
declined to interfere with the order
of the learned District Judge. It is
true that there has been some
Patna High Court CWJC No.9803 of 2017 dt.08-05-2025
technical breach because if there is
no appeal maintainable before the
learned District Judge, in the appeal
before the learned District Judge,
the same could not be set aside.
But the High Court was exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution. The High Court
had come to the conclusion that
the order of the prescribed
authority was invalid and improper.
The High Court itself could have set
it aside. Therefore in the facts and
circumstances of the case justice
has been done though, as
mentioned hereinbefore,
technically the appellant had a
point that the order of the District
Judge was illegal and improper. If
we reiterate the order of the High
Court as it is setting aside the order
of the prescribed authority in
exercise of the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution then
no exception can be taken. As
mentioned hereinbefore, justice has
been done and as the improper
order of the prescribed authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.9803 of 2017 dt.08-05-2025
has been set aside, no objection
can be taken."
(emphasis added)
In view of the above, it is
not always necessary to set aside
an order if it is found to have been
passed by an authority/court
having no jurisdiction.
4. Despite this, we cannot
help but state in absolute terms
that it is not appropriate for the
High Courts to entertain writ
petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the
orders passed by the Commission,
as a statutory appeal is provided
and lies to this Court under the
provisions of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. Once the
legislature has provided for a
statutory appeal to a higher court,
it cannot be proper exercise of
jurisdiction to permit the parties to
bypass the statutory appeal to such
higher court and entertain petitions
in exercise of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Even in the present case, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9803 of 2017 dt.08-05-2025
High Court has not exercised its
jurisdiction in accordance with law.
The case is one of improper
exercise of jurisdiction. It is not
expected of us to deal with this
issue at any greater length as we
are dismissing this petition on other
grounds.
9. While declining to
interfere in the present special
leave petition preferred against the
order passed by the High Court in
exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, we hereby
make it clear that the orders of the
Commission are incapable of being
questioned under the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court, as a
statutory appeal in terms of Section
27-A(1)(c) lies to this Court.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in
issuing a direction of caution that it
will not be a proper exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Courts to
entertain writ petitions against
such orders of the Commission.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9803 of 2017 dt.08-05-2025
4. As per the above citations the principle
laid down is that the High Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain matters arising from the orders passed by
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. This
principle squarely applies to the present facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Writ
petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 12.05.2025
Transmission Date 12.05.2025
