A writ petition is not maintainable against the State Commission's orders when alternative statutory remedies are available under the Consumer Protection Act.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 12.06.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 26226 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was disposed of by setting aside Ext. P7 order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, in Complaint No. 9/2021, with a direction to the Commission to restore the complaint to file and consider it on merits after hearing all the parties concerned.

2. The appellants herein were respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition, whereas the first respondent herein was the petitioner, and respondents Nos. 2 to 15 herein were respondents Nos. 3 to 16 in the writ petition.

3. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 had approached the 15th respondent by filing Complaint Case No. 9/2021. Vide Ext. P7 order dated 21.03.2024, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. The first respondent thereafter approached this Court through the writ petition challenging Ext. P7, whereby the complaint submitted by respondents Nos. 3 to 14 was dismissed for non-prosecution, without going into the merits of the contentions. The contention raised by the first respondent was that, in view of the statutory provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act , 2019, particularly Section 38 (2)(c) read with Section 49 , the State Commission could not have dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and was obligated to decide the matter on merits even if the complainant failed to appear on the date of hearing.

4. The learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the order impugned in the writ petition was contrary to a statutory provision and infringed the statutory rights of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

If an authority acts without jurisdiction, or beyond or in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court may exercise its powers. In the present case, the State Commission, while dismissing the complaint for the non- appearance of the complainant, exercised a power that was not vested in it. The learned Single Judge accordingly quashed Ext. P7, the order dismissing the complaint, and restored the matter to its original number with a direction to consider it on merits.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, inasmuch as Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019, provides for an appeal to the National Commission. Section 51 of the , 2019, is reproduced hereunder:

“51. Appeal to National Commission.—

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the National Commission shall not entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days unless 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 State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Save as otherw