Dismissed

The Superintendent of Post Offices Srikakulam Division, v. Vysyaraju Vanajakshmma, W/o.Laxmana Raju

Telangana HC24 Sept 2014WP/25752/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking Certiorari against an order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that the availability of an effective statutory alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, barred this proceeding absent one of the three grounds laid down in Whirlpool Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; liberty to approach the National Consumer Forum granted.

The Superintendent of Post Offices Srikakulam… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.25752 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 10.12.2013, in F.A.No.96 of 2013 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the same and confirm the order, dated 6.6.2012, in C.C.No.147 of 2007 of the District Consumer Forum, Srikakulam.

¶6

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

3. Admittedly, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the State Commission may prefer an appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is called the National Consumer Forum or the National Commission. When an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, they have to avail that remedy.

¶8

4. No doubt, availability of the statutory alternative remedy is not a bar for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, at the same time, the petitioners must show that their case falls under any of the three grounds, as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar

¶9

of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others^[1] viz., violation of principles of natural justice, violation of fundamental rights and the authority, which issued the proceedings, lacks jurisdiction. But, the case of the petitioners does not fall under any one of the three grounds as mentioned above.

¶10

5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the National Consumer Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

JUSTICE ANIS Date: 24.9.2014 AMD

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.25752 OF 2014

¶16

DATE: 24.9.2014