- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1154 WP No. 71 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: ROOPAK RAJ S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PROP.HUGINEER DESIGN STUDIO, R/AT NO. 3924, 1ST CROSS, 4TH PHASE, GIRINAGAR, BSK, BENGALURU-560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: RAJESH RAGHUNATHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O R. RAGHUNATHAN, R/AT NO.C-302, PRESTIGE LEELA RESIDENCIES, HAL ROAD, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, 2ND STAGE, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 008 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.DEEPAK BHASKAR., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS QUASH THE EX-PARTE ORDER DTD 29.01.2024 PASSED BY HONBLE DIST. CONSUMER COMMISSION, BENGALURU URBAN IN CC NO. 301/2023 (ANNX-C) AS NULL AND VOID TO Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1154 WP No. 71 of 2025 REMAND CASE IN CC NO. 301/2023 BACK TO DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION URBAN, BENGALURU, DIRECT THE COMMISSION TO DISPOSE OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES AND PAS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON MERITS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban in Consumer Complaint No.301/2023 filed by the respondent herein. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent, who is a caveator raises a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an appeal remedy available for the petitioner to approach the State Consumer Redressal Commission. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is before - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1154 WP No. 71 of 2025 this court, since there is violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that even in terms of the order sheet which is produced at Annexure-B, the notice sent to the petitioner returned “unclaimed”. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent however draws the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CICILY KALLARACKAL Vs. VEHICLE FACTORY - (2012) 8 SCC 524, wherein it is held once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal to a higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having regard to the preliminary objection raised at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondent that even it is a grievance raised by the petitioner that no notice was served to the petitioner and therefore he is before this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1154 WP No. 71 of 2025 the Constitution of India, nevertheless, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that wherever there is a statutory appeal remedy made available, it would not be right on the part of this Court to intervene by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is that if he approaches the State Consumer Forum, he will have to deposit 50% of the award amount as directed by the District Consumers Forum. Such a plea cannot be a ground for entertainment of this writ petition. It is also a fact that that this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 will not be in a position to call for records and consider as to whether the notices were in fact served on the petitioner, such exercise can be undertaken by the State Consumer Commission. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Consumer Redressal Commission. If the appeal is filed by the petitioner, the State Consumer Forum shall - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1154 WP No. 71 of 2025 take into consideration the time spent by the petitioner before this Court in this writ petition. The respondent is requested not to precipitate the matter for execution for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to file an appeal. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL