VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.

This review petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 13469 of 2013 seeking review of the order of the Division Bench dated 31-7-2013.

2. By the aforesaid order, the Division Bench declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in F.A. No. 909 of 2010 dated 23-8-2012 and petitioner was relegated to effective alternative remedy of appeal to the National Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Division Bench also relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd. (AIR 2010 SC 2608) and recorded that there is no compelling circumstance to bypass the said statutory remedy and entertain the writ petition.

3. The present review petition is filed by, primarily, contending that under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) the appellate jurisdiction of the National Commission is provided only against orders of the State Commissioner in the original proceedings and not against the orders in appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission. The aforesaid contention, based on Section 21 of the Act, is raised to contend that no such appeal lies to National Commission against the orders of the State Commission, referred to above and consequently, there is an error in the order of the Division Bench declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in R. R. Upadhyay v. State Commission for Consumer Disputes, Bombay, AIR 2010 Bombay 139.

4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the above aspect give rise to following points for consideration :

1. Whether the order of the Division Bench under review directing the petitioner to avail appellate remedy before the National Commission suffers from error apparent on the face of the record?

2. If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, whether the order under review deserves to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be entertained?

Point No. 1 :

5. In order to deal with the said contention it is necessary to reproduce Section 17 of the Act, which deals with jurisdiction of the State Commission; Section 19 of the Act, which provides for appeal against orders of the State Commission and Section 21 of the Act, which provides for jurisdiction of the National Commission.

17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction

(a) to entertain

(i) complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and

(ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and

(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opp