[2025:RJ-JP:5915] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2229/2025 M/s Rajasthali Resorts And Studio Ltd., Registered Office At D-5, Vandana Apartments, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, Running Resort In The Brand Name Of Rajasthali Resorts And Spa At Jaipur-Delhi Highway, Kukas, Jaipur-302028, Rajasthan, (Through Its Director) ----Petitioner Versus Akhil Modi S/o Late Shri Viplav Modi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 51-52, Vijay Nagar, Kartapura Phatak, Jaipur - 302006, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/02/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, whereunder the issue related to jurisdiction of Consumer Court to entertain the complaint for refund of booking amount has been decided against petitioner, whereas according to the petitioner act of non-refunding the booking amount does not fall within the definition of "unfair trade practice", as defined under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "2019 Act"), hence, respondent-complainant is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum under the 2019 Act. [2025:RJ-JP:5915] (2 of 4) [CW-2229/2025] 2. At the outset, on the query put by the Court in respect of availability of the appropriate alternate and statutory remedy of revision against the impugned order, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, before the National Commission for Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 58 of the 2019 Act, counsel for petitioner does not dispute the availability of such remedy to the petitioner, however, seeks to justify the action of filing of the writ petition, alleging the issue involved to be of remote effect and related to issue of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, hence, writ jurisdiction can be invoked circumventing the statutory remedy of revision before the NCDRC. 3. It would be apropos to reproduce Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act as follow: “58.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) ............ (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” 4. Having perused the provision of Section 58(1)(b) of 2019 Act referred hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue as to whether the dispute raised by the respondent- complainant under the 2019 Act, falls within the purview of consumer dispute or not, can be raised before the NCDRC by assailing the order impugned. [2025:RJ-JP:5915] (3 of 4) [CW-2229/2025] 5. On the issue of availability of the alternate and statutory remedy and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain writ petition, reference can be given to the case of Balwinder Singh Bhati v. Padam Motors and Ors. [2016 3 LJR 840], whereunder the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was of the view, that it would not be appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the commission, as remedy of alternate statutory remedy, against the order of State Consumer Commission, lies to National Commission. In that case, reliance was placed by the High Court on the ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 524]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in explicit terms in para no. 4 that “....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 such higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. In the recent judgment of Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited [(2023) 11 SCC 594] passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the principle laid down in the case of Cicily Kallarackal (supra) was re-iterated with a further view that the High Courts do have the jurisdiction to exercise powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against an order passed by the National Commission, but exercise of such powers is subject to rigours and parameters laid down in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Das Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97]. [2025:RJ-JP:5915] (4 of 4) [CW-2229/2025] 6. In the case at hand, petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of the High Court against the order passed by the State Commission. Following the above-referred cases and the principles laid down therein, this Court is of the view that the present case does not invite invocation of writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as no exigency has been made out to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court, circumventing the statutory remedy, available to the petitioner. As such, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order on merits and relegates the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy against the impugned order available under Section 58 of the 2019 Act, before the NCDRC. 7. In view of above, without going into the merits/demerits of the order impugned dated 09.12.2024, instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail the appropriate alternate statutory remedy against the impugned order, as provided under Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act. 8. Stay application(s) and any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J SOURAV /37