2022 (3) TMI 1159 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - appropriate forum - 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 two writ petitions? - HELD THAT - The impugned orders in these two writ petitions are the orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. This Court in CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS VERSUS SREYA 2021 (9) TMI 1363 - KERALA HIGH COURT 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. Once a writ petition is admitted and an interim order is passed, simply because several years elapsed after the admission of the writ petition, the question of maintainability cannot be raised or decided. Usually, in writ petitions, interim orders are passed at the admission stage. At that time, there may not be an appearance for the respondents in all the cases. This Court is admitting a writ petition based on prima facie finding. Prima facie finding regarding the maintainability of the writ petition cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners at the time of the final hearing especially because it is a finding without hearing the other side. The respondents in the writ petitions are free to raise the question of maintainability based on the argument that there is an alternative remedy, even at the time of final hearing also - Each case has to be decided on the basis of facts in that case. But it is to be declared that, simply because a writ petition is admitted and a stay is granted at the admission stage, there is no rule that the question of maintainability in the light of alternative remedy available cannot be raised at a later stage of hearing the writ petition, even if several years elapsed after the admission of the case. If an order is passed by the National Commission, that order can be challenged even before the Apex Court directly. When such a hierarchy of courts is mentioned in Consumer protection Act, this Court need not entertain a writ petition filed challenging the orders passed by the District Forum or state Commision. But it is a settled position that even if there is alternative remedy, the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the justice demands for the same. When a writ petition came up for admission challenging the orders passed by the Consumer Forums constituted as per the Consumer Protection Act, normally this Court will not entertain the same, unless there is an extraordinary situation to entertain such a writ petition. This Court will not entertain a writ petition filed in a routine manner against the orders passed by the Consumer Forums. Therefore, each case has to be decided on its own merit. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions when an alternative remedy is available.
2. Jurisdiction of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums in specific cases.
3. Discretion of the High Court to entertain writ petitions despite alternative remedies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions When an Alternative Remedy is Available:

The primary question in these writ petitions was whether the High Court can decide the maintainability of a writ petition on the grounds of an alternative remedy after admitting the petition and granting interim relief. The court referred to its previous decision in *Controller of Examinations and anr. v. Sreya N.*, which established that the Consumer Protection Act provides a complete code with a hierarchy of forums to challenge orders, and therefore, writ petitions should not be entertained in normal circumstances when an alternative remedy is available.

The court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy is a significant factor, but it is ultimately within the court's discretion to entertain a writ petition. This discretion is particularly relevant when specific averments justify not availing the statutory remedy. However, the court noted that once a writ petition is admitted, the question of alternative remedy does not become irrelevant, and the maintainability can still be challenged at the final hearing stage.

2. Jurisdiction of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums in Specific Cases:

In W.P.(C.) No. 3801/2014, the petitioner, a nationalized bank, challenged an order by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Idukki, which stayed recovery proceedings initiated due to a loan default. The court referred to previous rulings (*Punjab National Bank v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha* and *Reghu B and anr. v. State Bank of Travancore, Tvm and anr.*) which held that consumer forums do not have jurisdiction to interfere with bank recovery proceedings under loan agreements. The court found that the complaint itself was not maintainable and quashed the impugned orders.

In W.P.(C.) No. 36086/2015, the petitioner challenged an order by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Wayanad, on the grounds of jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner had not raised these jurisdictional issues before the District Forum. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the District Forum for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions.

3. Discretion of the High Court to Entertain Writ Petitions Despite Alternative Remedies:

The court discussed the principles governing the discretion to entertain writ petitions when an alternative remedy exists. It referred to several judgments, including *Genpact Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax* and *State of UP v. UP Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam SS*, which clarified that the admission of a writ petition does not preclude the court from examining its maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy at a later stage.

The court concluded that each case must be decided based on its facts, and there is no universal rule that once a writ petition is admitted, the question of maintainability cannot be raised. The court emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressal, and writ petitions should not be entertained routinely against orders passed by consumer forums unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Conclusion:

1. W.P.(C.) No. 3801/2014: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders (Exts.P1 and P2) were quashed, as the Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the bank's recovery proceedings.

2. W.P.(C.) No. 36086/2015: The writ petition was allowed in part. The impugned order (Ext.P9) was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Wayanad, for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner to raise all jurisdictional contentions.

The court's judgment underscores the importance of the alternative remedy principle while also recognizing the High Court's discretion to entertain writ petitions in exceptional cases.