1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION No.33164/2019 (GM – RES)

Between:

JSS Mahavidya Peeta

Employees House Building

Co-Operative Society

(Niyamitha)

JSS Nagar

Mysore – 570 011

Represented by its in-charge

Secretary Smt. G. Vijayadarshini

Wife of T.N. Shashi Kumar

Aged about 37 years

Resident of JSS Nagar

Mysore – 570 011

…Petitioner

(By Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, Advocate)

2

And :

Smt. C.N. Manjula

Wife of Sri Jinendra Prasad

Aged 46 years

Working as II Division Clerk

JSS Women’s College

Mysore

Resident of No.253

5^th Main Road, Jayanagar

Mysore – 570 014

...Respondent

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that

the orders dated 20.03.2015 passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mysore in

C.C.No.505/2013 produced as Annexure-C and order

dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Karnataka State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal

No.430/2015 produced as Annexure-E are Coram

Non-Judice Hence void and etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary

Hearing this day, Devdas J, made the following:

ORDER

The objection raised by the respondent to this

writ petition is that the petition under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, in

3

view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to

the petitioner to approach the National Consumer

Disputes

Redressal

Commission,

since

the

order

impugned is an order passed by the Karnataka State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal

No.430/2015.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however,

submits that the issue primarily raised here is regarding

the coram non judice i.e, the dispute raised before the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, itself was

not maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner

had invoked the provisions of Section 70 of the

Karnataka

Co-operative

Societies

Act,

1959,

and

therefore, the complaint before the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum should not have been

entertained.

3. On going through the writ papers, we find that

though a complaint was made by the petitioner to the

4

Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the petitioner

never raised a dispute under the provisions of the

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. When the

petitioner has elected to pursue the remedy under The

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the same could not

have been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner

had already raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar

of Co-operative Societies.

4. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to

dismiss the petition and relegate the petitioner to the

alternative

remedy

available

before

the

National

Commission. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

5. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the

petitioner prays this Court to give some breathing time

to the petitioner to approach the National Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission.

6. In the light of the above, we grant a period of 15

days to enable the petitioner to approach the National

5

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pray for

interim relief, and till then, the impugned order be

stayed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

nm