Writ petitions against District Consumer Redressal orders are not maintainable when an alternative remedy under the Consumer Protection Act exists, reinforcing the need to follow statutory appeal processes.

ORDER :

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Manjunath Toragal in the batch of writ petitions and the learned counsel Sri.Yash Nadakarni on behalf of the learned counsel Sri.Vitthal S. Teli appearing for respondent No.1.

2. Respondent No.2 is represented by learned counsel Smt.Priyanka H.Pawar. Respondent No.3 is not served. Notice is awaited as party left without instructions.

3. This Court does not find the need to issue notice in view of the fact that this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions on the ground of want of jurisdiction and availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

4. These batches of writ petitions arise out of the same order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Belagavi, in the respective cases. Hence, these matters are taken up together with the consent of both the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The petitioners are questioning the order dated 19.02.2022 passed in C.C.No.27/2022 in W.P.No.101018/2025, order dated 29.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.383/2021 in W.P.No.100878/2025, order dated 15.06.2023 passed in C.C.No.446/2021 in W.P.No.100879/2025, order dated 02.03.2021 passed in C.C.No.143/2021 in W.P.No.101020/2025, order dated 11.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.396/2021 in W.P.No.101021/2025, order dated 11.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.398/2021 in W.P.No.101022/2025, order dated 06.04.2021 passed in C.C.No.187/2021 in W.P.No.101023/2025, order dated 06.03.2023 passed in C.C.No.403/2020 in W.P.No.101024/2025, order dated 29.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.380/2021 in W.P.No.101025/2025, order dated 02.03.2021 passed in C.C.No.144/2021 in W.P.No.101026/2025, order dated 06.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.381/2021 in W.P.No.101027/2025, order dated 15.03.2022 passed in C.C.No.26/2022 in W.P.No.101029/2025, order dated 06.05.2023 passed in C.C.No.379/2021 in W.P.No.101030/2025, order dated 29.10.2021 passed in C.C.No.382/2021 in W.P.No.101032/2025, order dated 11.11.2021 passed in C.C.No.397/2021 in W.P.No.101045/2025.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is arbitrary, contrary to well-established principles of law, so also contrary to the orders passed by the State Commission whereby the matter was remitted back to the District Commission to pass suitable orders for taking steps against the Society, represented by its Secretary, in view of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, which was also remitted to the District Forum.

7. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the order passed by the State Forum remitting the matter back for re-consideration, the District Forum has passed the impugned order, taking cognizance and recording sworn statement, and issuing summons to the JDR/accused, who are the petitioners before this Court. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court questioning the said order of the District Forum.

8. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 vehemently contends that primarily petitions are not maintainable before this Court, as the same are hit by the provisions of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , which provides for an appeal provision under the Act. Under the circumstances, the present petitions are not maintainable and the petitions will have to be dismissed solely on this ground, without going into the merits of the matter.

9. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the very same petitioners had preferred an appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum on the earlier occasion,