TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioners raised a maintainability issue of Ext. P1 before the commission, but as per Ext. P5, the CDRC rejected the contention of the petitioners and found that the complaint is maintainable. Challenging Ext. P5, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. 3. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, this Court requested the counsel to argue about the maintainability of the Writ Petition against Ext. P5 order, when there is a statutory remedy to the petitioners by way of filing an appeal against it before the State Commission, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short Act 2019). The counsel for the petitioners conceded that the petitioners can challenge Ext. P5 befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a Writ Petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Court need not entertain a Writ Petition unless there are compelling reasons. The petitioners are the University and its authorities. They can approach the State Commission, instead of filing a Writ Petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I think there is a camp sitting of the State Commission in some of the centres in Kerala and the principal sitting is at Thiruvananthapuram. Nothing is mentioned in the Writ Petition which prevents the writ petitioners to move an appeal against Ext. P5 order before the State Commission except the contention that CDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 complaint. S.41 of the Act, 2019 deals with appeal against the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upees ten crore: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit; (ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees; (iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain." 8. Section 47(1)(b) says that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to interfere when it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. So the jurisdiction question also can be decided by the State Commission. The....