TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 (5) KLT 560] 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. It will be better to extract paragraph No.5 of the judgment in the Controller of Examinations' case (supra) "5. Even though the Apex Court observed that in certain contingencies, this Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can use its discretion either to entertain such writ petition or to reject it. Specific averments are necessary in the writ petition for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal when an appealable order is challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Simply stating that the authority who passed the order has no jurisdiction alone is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the constitution, especially when the appellate authority also can consider the question of jurisdiction. This court need not entertain writ petitions to interfere with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar point was considered and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the counsel submitted that since the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, Ext.P9 is unsustainable. 6. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.3801/2014 submitted that the petitioner, in that case, is a nationalised bank and in connection with the recovery proceedings initiated when there was default from the side of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the District Forum passed Ext.P2 order staying the recovery proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Punjab National Bank v.Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha [2011 (3) KHC 511], Reghu B and anr. v.State Bank of Travancore, Tvm and anr. [2015 (4) KHC 270] and also relying on several other decisions of this court and apex court submitted that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against the recovery proceedings initiated by a bank in connection with the default committed in repaying a loan availed by a customer. 7. The counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C.) No.36086/2015 raised a contention that this writ petition is not maintainable, in the light of the judgment of this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative remedy, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition (State of HP & others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2005 (SC) 3936], Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade [AIR 1999 (SC) 22], Harbansla Isahnia & anr. v. Indian Corporation Ltd. & Others [AIR 2003 (SC) 2120], the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5122/2021 by the Supreme Court and Radhakrishnan & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others [AIR 2021 (SC) 2114]). The counsel also submitted that if the prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari, the question of alternative remedy is not available in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Nooh [1958 SCR 595]. 9. The counsel for the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C.) No.36086/2015 submitted that the Apex Court in Genpact Pvt.Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. [2019 KHC 7167] considered this point in detail and observed that admission of writ petition cannot estop the court from examining the maintainability of the petitioner on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of UP & anr. v. UP Rajya Khanij Vikas Nig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court did record the preliminary objection but was prima facie of the view that the transactions defined in S.115QA were initially confined only to those covered by S.77A of the Companies Act. Therefore, without rejecting the preliminary objection, notice was issued in the matter. The subsequent order undoubtedly made the earlier interim order absolute. However, the preliminary objection having not been dealt with and disposed of, the matter was still at large. In State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others, 2008 (12) SCC 675, this Court dealt with an issue whether after admission, the Writ Petition could not be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The submission was considered by this Court as under: "38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Chandra Tewari, (AIR 1992 All 331 (Suresh Chandra Tewari vs. District Supply Officer)), that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party once the High Court has entertained a writ petition, albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner. 13. Similarly, this Court also considered this point in Kunhikandan's case (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the above decision is extracted hereunder: "6. I shall now consider the preliminary point regarding the maintainability of this O.P. There are a number of decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court on the point. It is not necessary to refer to all those decisions in this case. It is well settled that ordinarily the existence of an adequate statutory remedy bars the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226. It is also equally well settled that in cases where there have been violation of principles of natural justice or any statutory provision or rule or an error apparent on the face of the record, the jurisdiction under Art.226 can be exercised. The position in this regard is concluded by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1983 SC 603). The Supreme Court has held in the above case: "I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court for a long time after the admission is not at all a bar in raising that question or deciding that question at the time of final hearing. Of course, this is a matter to be decided by the court concerned considering the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be any straight jacket formula on this issue. 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. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on certain decisions of this Court to support their case. The 1st decision relied on by the counsel is Tahasildar, Pathanapuram's case (supra). A Single Judge of this Court in that decision observed in paragraph 22 relying on two Division Bench judgment of this court and observed that the question of alternative remedy is relevant only at the stage of exercising the discretion of this Court as to whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear the writ petition on merits is perverse. Accordingly, the second contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is also repelled. The third contention raised based on certain observations concerning the validity of Ext. R3(a) is also of no consequence. Even assuming Ext. R3(a) is held to be valid, the same will not affect the final outcome of the case." (underline supplied) 17. In Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer's case's (supra) also, a Division Bench of this Court observed like this : "13. Mr. Roy Chacko, learned Senior Government Pleader, strenuously urged that the respondent had an alternate remedy of revision before the statutory authorities, and, therefore, the Original Petition ought not have been entertained. The learned Single Judge has rightly given short shrift to this contention by holding that alternate remedy is an attractive argument only when a Writ Petition comes up for admission; it is open for this Court to decline to exercise its plenary powers under Art.226 of the Constitution and relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedies, if they are equally efficacious alternate remedies. The learned Single Judge disposed of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Writ Petition has been pending from the year 1981 and to direct the petitioner to file an appeal in the year 1990 will amount to a mockery of justice. It has been held that the existence of an alternative remedy is no ground for refusing the relief of writ of certiorari where it appears on the face of the proceedings or on disputed facts that the authority had acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court, in a number of cases, has also taken the view that when a Writ Petition has been pending for a long time, it may not be proper to dismiss that Writ Petition on the ground of alternate remedy. We are in agreement with the above decisions. 13. According to us, after the Writ Petition is admitted, it has to be disposed of on merits. Of course while disposing of the case, the court may have to exercise its discretion when disputed question of facts arise. But to dismiss such a Writ Petition after a lapse of years on the ground of alternate remedy is not proper." (underline supplied) 19. The observations in the above judgments are based on the facts of each case. But the general finding if any in the above judgments to the effect that, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commission. If an order is passed by the State Commission, that order can be challenged before the National Commission. 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. Now, I will consider the contention of the petitioners in these two writ petitions separately. W.P.(C.) No. 3801/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point put to cut down this circle of forensic Whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field. 20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. 21. That being so, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining the contention that the show cause notice issued to the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction and that the Registrar, in the circumstances of the case, was not justified in acting as the "TRIBUNAL". In the above view ....