'CR'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RD FRIDAY, THE 3 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 5679 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:

1 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

2 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT/S:

SREYA N., D/O.NARAYANAN P.K., 'SREYAS', FARM ROAD, KARIMBAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 142.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

'CR'

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------------

W.P.(C.) No.5679 of 2021 --------------------------------------

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2021

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in this writ petition are the Controller of Examinations, Kannur University, and the Kannur University, represented by its Registrar. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (for short "CDRC"). The main contention of the petitioners is that the CDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P1 application and the petitioners raised a maintainability issue of Ext.P1 before the commission, but as per Ext.P5, the CDRC rejected the contention of the petitioners and found that the complaint is maintainable. Challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners.

3. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court requested the counsel to argue about the maintainability of the writ petition against Ext.P5 order, when there is a statutory remedy to the petitioners by way of filing an appeal against it before the State Commission, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short Act 2019). The counsel for the petitioners conceded that the petitioners can challenge Ext.P5 before the State Commission by filing an appeal. But, the counsel submitted that the CDRC entertained Ext.P1 complaint, without jurisdiction. The Standing Counsel relied the judgment of the Apex Court in Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [1998 KHC 1225] and also a judgment of this Court in Principal, St.Joseph College of Communication v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others [2010 KHC 6214]. The counsel also submitted that the decision relied in Ext.P5 order [CPJ 2016 (III) NC 280] is already reversed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). That decision is also produced [CDJ

2020 (Cons.) Case No.036]. The counsel submitted that the order passed by the CDRC is unsustainable and the complaint itself is not maintainable before the CDRC.

4. The contention of the petitioners that the writ court can entertain a writ petition in certain circumstances even if there is an alternative remedy is a settled position. This is the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation's case (supra). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder :

“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Art.226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

15. Under Art.226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ Petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, na