HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5152 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Under challenge is the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P Lucknow passed in Complaint Case no.12 of 2021. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that during pendency of the proceedings before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had been initiated and order of moratorium has been passed on 24.03.2023. It is further urged that though the said order had been brought to the notice of State Commission yet the same has not been noticed, as a consequence, the impugned judgment had been based. A specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the order passed by the State Commission was appealed in terms of Consumer Protection Act to which it has been informed that the appellant had filed an appeal which came to be dismissed by means of order dated 21.10.2024 on the ground that the statutory pre deposit has not been made by the appellant (the petitioner herein). From a perusal of the order dated 21.10.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.16, it would reveal that the submission advanced before this Court was the core contention raised before Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radhika Varma, Akshat Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Jhunjhunwala Resolution Professional Of M/S Spenta Enclave Private Ltd. .....Petitioner(s) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Another .....Respondent(s) the National Consumer Redressal Commission but the appeal had been rejected on the ground of non compliance of pre deposit condition. Apparently, the order dated 21.10.2024 has not been assailed. In view of the aforesaid, where the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the impugned order and the appeal been dismissed way back on 21.10.2024, now, indirectly the order passed by the State Commission is sought to be challenged which is not permissible as it is now too well settled that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly either. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not deem appropriate to entertain the petition which is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself, leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him in law. September 1, 2025 Harshita A227 No. 5152 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench