(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Rule. By consent, rule is heard forthwith.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner seeks to quash the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai dated 5 August and 9 July 2012 which have been delivered in Execution Application No.10/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.06/2007.

3. What we are presently concerned with are prayers (b-1) and (b-2) which read as under: “b-1) That it may be declared that the provision of Sec. 27 (3) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is in contravention of provisions of Chapter XIV Cr. P.C relating to the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate. b-2) And/or in the alternative the provisions of Sec.27(3) Consumer Protection Act be declared illegal and invalid for being in direct contravention of the procedural law laid down under Cr.P.C being applicable to the proceedings U/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

4. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “Act of 186”) is null, void and unconstitutional. It is ultravires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It also violates the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as by Section 27, non-compliance with the orders passed under the Act of 1986 is made a punishable offence. However, though the punishment provided is more than two years, what sub-section (3) of Section 27 provides is that the trial will be by summary procedure. Once the trial is by such procedure, then parties like the Petitioner are estopped from applying for discharge. Once the Code of Criminal Procedure has carved out a procedure for trial of criminal case, where the offences alleged invite a punishment for more than two years and that procedure is known as warrant trial and in which an opportunity is given to the accused to apply for discharge, then, non-availability of such opportunity in the present proceeding would vitiate the statutory provision. It cannot stand to test of fairness, reasonableness and nondiscrimination as is enshrined by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, original Applicant/complainant, submits that the point raised in this writ petition about validity of Section 27 stands concluded by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and particularly the one delivered in the case of State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and ors . (2003) 2 SCC 412),. Even otherwise, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal and raising all contentions. For these reasons, he submits that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Since Mr. Kadam has urged that plea of constitutional validity cannot be raised in proceedings under the Act as Forums and Tribunals created under the Act cannot decide the issue of the constitutional validity of the Act or any of its provision that we have heard Mr. Kadam on the point of validity of Section 27. However, we do not find that the issue is still alive. The point of constitutional validity of the Act has been decided not only in the case of VishwabharatiHouse Building Cooperative Society (supra), but in prior decisions. First of all, the Act of 1986 is an Act to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose to make provisions for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other Authorities for settlement of consumers disputes and for matters connected therewith. 7 The statements of objects and reasons make it clear that to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principles