The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 renders a writ petition challenging an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order/judgment dated 31.1.2018 as contained under Annexure-1, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has been assailed.

2. The fact of the case of the petitioner is that the complainant, opposite party no.1 has filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under section 17(1)(a)(i) alleging therein that there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in which an order has been passed by the Commission by making the proceeding as ex-parte, even though no notice has been served upon the petitioner, therefore the petitioner had got no knowledge about the aforesaid dispute case, hence the order passed by the Commission since is in gross violation of principle of natural justice, as such the same has been sought to be quashed by this court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the court by placing reliance upon the order-sheet as contained under Annexure-1 by showing that notices have been issued by registered post with A.D. on 03.3.2017 but without waiting for the service report, the notices issued against the petitioner, who was opposite party before the commission, has been held to be sufficient and thereby recording non-appearance, set the proceeding as ex-parte and proceeded with the matter and finally passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 93,69,576/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of the said order, failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum till realization.

It is the further case of the petitioner that opposite party no.1, thereafter, has filed one execution case being Execution case No.3 of 2018 under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and then only the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Commission and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. This court, at this stage, has raised a question regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy available under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, learned Senior Counsel has argued out the case both on the issue of maintainability as also on merit which has been heard by this court at length.

5. The contention of the learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner so far as maintainability of the writ petition is that since the order passed by the Commission is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice, as such the instant writ petition is maintainable under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India because there is no complete embargo upon the High Court not to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather it is self-imposed restriction and when there is violation of principle of natural justice, as per the law already settled, writ will be said to be maintainable and since there is violation of principle of natural justice, hence the instant writ petition is maintainable.

6. This court has thought it proper that before going into the merit of the case, the maintainability of the writ petition is first to be decided.

This court has gone into the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The main purpose to promulgate the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better protection of the interest of the consumers for speedy disposal of the grievance related to the consumers which is a benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summery trial. The authority under the Act exercises quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes. The consumer within the meaning of the Act, 1986 has been given the statut