Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Ideal Industries and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in the revised cause list.

Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

By means of present writ petition, Petitioner challenged order dated 6.4.1991 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad as well as order dated 30.10.1991 passed by State Commission.

Facts in brief as submitted by learned Counsel for Petitioner are that initially contesting Respondents for redressal of their grievances filed a compliant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) registered as Complaint No. 77 of 1990, L.R. Maurya v. Secretary, Door Sanchar, New Delhi.

Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner filed an appeal (Appeal No. 307/ SC/91, Telephone Varanasi v. Ideal Corporate Industry) u/s 15 of the Act, dismissed vide order dated 30.10.1991, hence present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner thereby challenging said order.

Counsel for Petitioner submits that as the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum thereby allowing complaint of Respondent and the order passed by State Commissioner u/s 15 of the Act thereby dismissing appeal of the Petitioner are without jurisdiction, as such the present writ petition filed by Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable and the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy available to Petitioner and impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

I have heard counsel for Petitioner and gone through the record.

As per admitted fact of the present case complaint filed by contesting Respondent under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, allowed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Furum by order dated 6.4.1911 thereafter appeal filed by Petitioner/Appellant, dismissed by appellate authority/State Commissioner by order dated 30.10.1991. Further against the appellate order, Petitioner got a statutory remedy of Revision u/s 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before National Consumer Redressal Commission.

In view of the abovesaid facts, once the statutory remedy is available to Petitioner under the statute itself then in that circumstances he should avail the same and writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the ground of availability of statutory remedy under the statute itself in view of the law as down by Apex Court in the following cases:

In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, , wherein it was held as under:

Where a right or liability is created by statute which give special remedy for enforcing it, that must be availed as the said statute provides a complete machinery in order to challenge the impugned action taken therein in the statute itself and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Karnataka Chemical Industries and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 12, wherein it was held as under:

When there is no challenge to the validity of any statutory provision, we see no reason as to why a writ petition should have been filed by passing the alternative remedy which is provided under the statute. On the short ground we dismiss this appeal, vacate the interim orders, direct the payment of the balance amount of duty alongwith interest @ 15% per annum with yearly rests. It will be open to the Appellant to avail of such statutory remedy as may be available to it. If an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the Department will take a lenient view in condoning the delay.

In the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, wherein it was held as under:

If there is statutory alternative remedy available to a person under an statute itself, in that case the writ petition should nto be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Petitioner is directed to avail the alternative statutory remedy.

In the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, held as under.

Para - 23 - In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the Appellants u/s 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, State Bank of India v. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 252.

Para - 24- In City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, this Court had observed that:

The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:

(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;

(b) the petition reveals all material facts;

(c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;

(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;

(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.

For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate Statutory remedy of Revision u/s 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, so the argument advanced by learned Counsel for Petitioner in this regard rejected having no force.

At this stage, counsel for Petitioner prays that Petitioner be permitted to avail the alternate remedy under the provisions as provided u/s 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

No other point is pressed and argued in the matter in question on behalf of the Petitioner.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with the observation that it will be open to Petitioner, if he so advised, may approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances involved in the present case.

No order as to costs.