Writ petition challenging consumer commission orders must exhaust statutory remedies under Consumer Protection Act before judicial review.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.3815 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has closed the writ petition in the light of statutory remedy available to the appellants to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the question as to whether the High Court should have entertained a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the State Commission ignoring the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986. The learned Single Judge also did not consider the aspect of judicial review which can be availed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and prayed that the writ appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, the representing counsel for the DSGI appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the afore prayer and submitted that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable inasmuch as if the order under challenge has been passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum and therefore, it cannot be termed as original proceedings. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the representing counsel for the DSGI appearing for the 2nd respondent.

6. In any case proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable as the issue does not arise from any original proceedings and the order passed by the Forum is under challenge. At the most the appellants could have challenged the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if good grounds were available. Moreover, the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 provides for appeal before the State Commission under Section 19 and thereafter appeal to the National Commission and then to the Supreme Court of India.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in relegating the appellants to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal, being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.