A petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the entire proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.375/2022 arising out of C.C. No.684/2021 on the file of the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’, for short).

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent before the Commission against the petitioner is totally without jurisdiction, no authority, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is contended that the proceedings under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is not sustainable in law.

3. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served, there is no representation on their behalf.

4. On careful perusal of the provisions of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 , which reads as under:

“ 41. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:

Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80.”

it is apparently not in dispute and there is no ambiguity that a person aggrieved by any order passed by the District Commission, may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 45 days from the date of the said order.

5. The petitioner is undoubtedly questioning the order passed by the District Commission. There is an alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 41 of the Act to prefer an appeal before the State Commission on whatever grounds so urged by the petitioner. Therefore, when there is an alternative efficacious remedy clearly specified under the Act, the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the impugned order passed by the Commission cannot be sustained, as it would not be maintainable.

6. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order:

This petition is disposed of as not maintainable. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate Forum. The time spent before this Court shall be condoned if such an appeal is filed before the appellate Forum.