The issues raised under the Consumer Protection Act should be decided by the appellate bodies provided by the Act, and the court should not entertain petitions seeking judicial review when an alternate remedy is available.

Sreedharan, J.

These Original Petitions have come before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Substantially similar questions arise for consideration. So, we are disposing of these petitions by a common judgment.

2. Petitioner in these writ petitions is the Central Board of Secondary Education. This Board has educational institutions affiliated to it. It holds examinations for the students who arc studying in those affiliated schools and institutions. Among the various examinations conducted by the petitioner are the All India Senior School Certificate Examination (Class XII) and the All India Secondary School Examination (Class X). Alleging that the said examinations were not properly held, that results of supplementary examinations were not announced in time; and that in the case of some of the students results were not announced at all, aggrieved students approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam for getting reliefs provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". On getting notice from the Forum, writ petitioner filed objections disputing the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain petitions filed by the students. The preliminary objection raised by the Central Board of Secondary Education regarding the jurisdiction of the Forum was turned down. The Forum thereupon held that it has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint filed by the students-petitioners before them. This order of the Forum is questioned in the first four Original Petitions.

3. On getting notice on the petitions filed by the students before the Forum, the Central Board of Secondary Education has come up in the latter five cases challenging the action of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in entertaining those petitions.

4. According to the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, namely the Central Board of Secondary Education, education is not an activity coming within the ambit of the definition "service" as defined in S.2(1)(o) of the Act. The orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by the students, which are under challenge in the earlier mentioned four Original Petitions, are not now open to challenge before the State Forum because the period of limitation prescribed by the Act has expired. These Original Petitions were allowed to pond before this Court for more than two years. At this juncture if those Original Petitions are disposed of holding that petitioner has not exhausted the alternate remedy provided by the Act, it will result in injustice to the petitioner. On these basis it is submitted that this Court is to give a verdict as to whether the activities of the petitioner will fall within the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in the Act.

5. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and to achieve that it provides for establishment of Consumer Redressal Forums for settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected with it. That Act is a complete code by itself. Depending on the claim, the consumer is to approach the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission. Orders passed by the District Forum are made appealable to the State Commission under S.15 of the Act. Such an appeal has to be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of the order of the District Forum. As per the proviso to that Section, the State Commission can entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of 30 days. Under S.17(b) of the Act, the State Commission is having jurisdiction to call for the records in cases pending before the District Forum, where it appears to the Commission that the District Forum has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irre