Anantha Charan Das vs State of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client wants appropriate orders directing opposite party no.2

(Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhubaneswar) to dispose of C.D. Case no.201 of 2019.

He submits further, order dated 6th August, 2012 of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) no.24228 â€" 24229 of 2002 (Cicily Kallarackal) cannot be

applied in preventing this Court from exercising writ jurisdiction.

This Bench by order dated 15th December, 2021 in W.P.(C) no.32749 of 2021 (Balimela Hydro Electric Project (Unit of Odisha Hydro Power

Corporation Ltd.) vs. District Consumer Redressal Commission and another has already held that the High Court is bound by the caution in Cicily

Kallarackal (supra) and will not entertain the writ petition. By Cicily Kallarackal (supra) the Supreme Court declared that since appeal lies to it from

order of the National Commission, writ petitions should not be entertained by the High Courts and accordingly the caution issued. The other appellate

authority, provided by the statute, is not a Court. Law declared therein appears to be, because the statute (Consumer Protection Act, 1986) provides

that the Supreme Court is the first appellate Court, the High Courts were cautioned against exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction against the

National Commission. There was no exception made that the District or State Commissions would be subject to judicial review by the High Courts

under articles 226 and 227 but not the National Commission. Hence, the caution applies and though the High Courts have constitutional writ jurisdiction

but judgment law of the Supreme Court bars exercise of the same in respect of matters arising out of operation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The writ petition is dismissed.

...........................................