A writ petition challenging proceedings initiated outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court is not maintainable in that High Court, even if the petitioner received the notice in its jurisdiction.

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition, C.O. 13091(W) of 1990, was filed on 29th August, 1990 by the petitioner challenging inter alia the annexures 'F', 'I' & 'L' in the writ petition. Annexure 'F' purports to be a notice issued by Rajasthan State Consumer Protection Council (hereinafter called the said Council), the respondent No.2. Annexure 'I' appears to be an order dated 17th April, 1990 issued by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter called the said Commission), the respondent No.3. Annexure 'L' purports to be a notice dated 18.7.1990 issued by the said Commission asking the petitioner to show cause why the order dated 17.04.90 should not be implemented under section 25 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the said Act) and why the petitioner should not be punished under section 27 of the said Act.

2. The writ petition was initially moved on 29th August, 1990 before a learned Judge of this Court and the writ petition was directed to be taken up on an adjourned date upon notice on respondent No.2. On the next date, the learned Judge after hearing the appearing parties was pleased to pass the following order:

"No further steps be taken in terms of the application dated 28th August, 1990. In the event any order has been passed no further effect be given thereto until further orders of this Court. No further steps be taken in terms of the application under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 until further orders of this Court.

This order is passed, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties including the maintainability and jurisdiction of this writ application.

Let this matter appear in the list as 'contested application' one week after long vacation.

Let xerox copies of this order be supplied by the Department to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties upon payment of usual charges and upon an undertaking to apply for and obtain the certified copy of this order".

It appears while passing the order the learned Judge made it clear that the said order is without prejudice to the question of maintainability of the writ petition.

Thereafter, affidavit has been filed in this case and matter has been argued before me.

3. The writ petition has been contested only by the respondent No.4. It appears from the array of parties in this writ petition that the respondent No.4 is the only the contesting respondent.

4. Initially the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner was very much relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Peerless General Investment Co. Ltd. vs. The District Consumer Redressal Forum, reported in 1996(1) CHN, page 371 and submitted that a learned Judge of this Court has held that the provisions of the said Act are ultra vires, so all proceedings taken under the said Act may be quashed following the said judgement.

5. This Court found that the provision of the said Act came up for consideration in various cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all those cases proceeded on the basis of the said Act is a valid piece of legislation.

6. This Court further finds that in a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha, reported in AIR 1966 SC 550, this Apex Court held the Act does not suffer from "the arbitrariness or unreasonableness so as to be violative of articles 14 and 19(1)g of the Constitution" (paragraph 58 page 569 of the report). In view of the aforesaid declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the ratio in Peerless (supra) is not binding on this Court. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to hold that all proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the said Act are bound to be quashed.

7. So the next question is for consideration whether the writ petition, challenging those proceedings initiated in Rajasthan, is maintainable in Calcutta High Court.

8. The learned Counsel for