Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where effective alternative remedies exist, especially in consumer disputes; exceptions are limited and clearly defined.

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated August 1, 2024 and January 9, 2024 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Commission’) respectively. The petitioner in furtherance prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 5 to 7 as well as other complainants in respect of recovery of claims. Moreover, the petitioner further prays for writ of mandamus commanding the Commissioner, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.2’) to specify the time frame to conclude the consolidation operation in the concerned area.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the present writ petition is delineated below:

a. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated in the year 2007, engaged in the business of real estate development in Lucknow has launched a residential plotting development scheme titled “Sahu City Phase-2” on August 29, 2012 at Village Shivpuri, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow. The said land was located outside the municipal and planning area as per Section 2(zh) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 at the time of launch.

b. Subsequent to launch of the scheme, the layout plan of the project was duly approved by the Zila Panchayat, Lucknow in two parts under the Uttar Pradesh (Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats) Adhiniyam, 1961, in two phases on April 28, 2018 and April 29, 2019.

c. Respondent nos. 5 to 7 and other consumers booked residential plots under valid booking agreements, and the petitioner proceeded with development work in accordance with the scheme wherein possession was to be delivered within the specified time, subject to completion of development.

d. However, after initiation of the project and acceptance of bookings, consolidation proceedings in the said village was initiated pursuant to a notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, vide publication dated July 5, 2013. As a result, the petitioner’s project has come to a halt and he was unable to deliver the possession to plot allottees.

e. Respondent nos. 5 to 7 lodged complaints before the District Commission seeking refund of the total amount deposited by them and petitioner filed its objection against the said complaint. Thereafter District Commission passed an order dated January 9, 2024 directing the petitioner to refund the amounts alongwith 9% interest. Respondent nos. 5 to 7 preferred cross appeal against the said order for the enhancement of rate of interest from 9% to 12% per annum and also for the payment of interest from date of deposit till the date of actual payment, which was allowed by modification of order dated January 9, 2024.

f. Petitioner filed appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) before State Commission and the said appeal wa