High Court Upholds CDRC Jurisdiction | Statutory Remedy Emphasized

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) to entertain a complaint. The court emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy through an appeal before the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It highlighted that the petitioners should utilize the established appellate mechanism rather than burdening the High Court with such cases.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) to entertain complaint; Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against CDRC's order; Availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to CDRC's Jurisdiction
The petitioners, Controller of Examinations and Kannur University, challenged the jurisdiction of CDRC to entertain the complaint (Ext. P1). The petitioners contended that CDRC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but CDRC rejected this contention in Ext. P5 order. The petitioners argued that the CDRC's decision was unsustainable, citing judgments from the Apex Court and a local court. Additionally, they highlighted that the decision relied upon by CDRC in Ext. P5 had been reversed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issue 2: Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226
The High Court considered the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 against Ext. P5 order, which was found to be appealable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The counsel for the petitioners acknowledged the availability of a statutory remedy through an appeal before the State Commission. However, the petitioners argued that CDRC entertained the complaint without jurisdiction. The High Court referred to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation's case, emphasizing that the High Court has discretion to entertain a Writ Petition even if an alternative remedy exists, especially in cases of violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of an Act.

Issue 3: Availability of Statutory Remedy of Appeal
The High Court noted that Ext. P5 was an appealable order under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, providing the petitioners with a statutory remedy to challenge it before the State Commission. The court highlighted the provisions of the Act regarding appeals against District Commission orders and the jurisdiction of the State Commission. Section 47(1)(b) of the Act empowered the State Commission to intervene if a District Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court emphasized that the State Commission could also address jurisdictional issues, making it unnecessary for the petitioners to file a Writ Petition before the High Court. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, granting the petitioners the liberty to file a statutory appeal in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the availability of a statutory remedy through an appeal before the State Commission. The court highlighted the importance of utilizing the statutory appeal process provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, rather than burdening the High Court with cases that could be addressed through the established appellate mechanism.

---