The High Court can entertain writ petitions against orders of consumer forums unless an alternative remedy exists, which should be evaluated based on the specifics of the case.

JUDGMENT

A common question was raised in these two writ petitions. Once a writ petition is admitted by this Court and thereafter when the writ petition came up for final hearing after a long period, whether the writ court can decide the question of maintainability of the writ petition itself on the ground that there is an alternative remedy is the question raised in these two writ petitions. Since a common question was raised in both cases, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The impugned orders in these two writ petitions are the orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. This Court in Controller of Examinations and anr. v. Sreya N. [ 2021 (5) KLT 560 ] held that the writ court need not entertain the writ petition challenging orders passed by the consumer forums because the Consumer Protection Act is a complete code in which there is a hierarchy of forums mentioned to challenge the orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums. It will be better to extract paragraph No.5 of the judgment inthe Controller of Examinations' case (supra)

“5. Even though the Apex Court observed that in certain contingencies, this Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can use its discretion either to entertain such writ petition or to reject it. Specific averments are necessary in the writ petition for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal when an appealable order is challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Simply stating that the authority who passed the order has no jurisdiction alone is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the constitution, especially when the appellate authority also can consider the question of jurisdiction. This court need not entertain writ petitions to interfere with orders passed by authorities without jurisdiction in all situations when a statutory remedy is available. This court can use discretion while entertaining such writ petitions considering the facts and circumstances of each case.”

3. In W.P.(C.) No.36086/2015, the impugned order is Ext.P9, which is an order passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta (for short 'District Forum'). The above writ petition was admitted by this Court on 27.11.2015 and this court was pleased to stay all further proceedings to enforce Ext.P9 order for six weeks. Subsequently, the interim order was extended regularly, and subsequently, it was extended until further orders on 30.05.2016. W.P.(C.) No.3801/2014 is filed against Ext.P2 interim order passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Idukki on 20.12.2013 in IA No.143/2013 in CC No.409/2013. When that writ petition was filed, the Registry of this Court noted a defect about the maintainability, and the writ petition was placed before the court. This Court as per order dated 5.2.2014 directed the Registry to number the writ petition leaving open the issue regarding the maintainability to be decided if raised by the respondents. Thereafter, the writ petition came up for admission on 5.2.2014 and the writ petition was admitted and all further proceedings in CC No.409/2013 on the file of the Consumer Dispute Red