Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71825 (KAR)

MRS. ANITHA PRATEEP v. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP/9827/2015 · 2025-08-18

D K Singh, Venkatesh Naik T

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32025-DB WP No. 9827 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 9827 OF 2015 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. ANITHA PRATEEP AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O PRATEEP.M #37, 14TH CROSS, GOKULAM, II STAGE, MYSORE 57002. 2. PRATEELP M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O M.V. VASUDEVA RAO #37, 14TH CROSS, GOKULAM, II STAGE, MYSORE 570002. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AIYER VLV., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY PRESIDENT NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UPABHOKTA NYAY BHAWAN, F BLOCK, GENERAL POOL OFFICE COMPLEX, INA, NEW DELHI-110023. 2. MR. SYED NIZAM ALI MANGING DIRECTOR MYSORE HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD NO.545, 2ND STAGE, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32025-DB WP No. 9827 of 2015 MAIN ROAD, RAJEEV NAGAR, MYSORE 570019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. ASLAM KHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER OF R-1 DATED.10.2.2015 PASSED IN EX.R.P.NO.58/2014 VIDE ANNEX-K OWING TO ABOVE AND / OR OTHERWISE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) We have taken this writ petition on revised call which is filed for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by respondent No.1 in Ex.R.P.No.58/2014. No one has put in appearance to address the writ petition. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions of Section 67 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019, this writ petition is not maintainable. 2. Under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there was an efficacious remedy to file an appeal against an order of the State Commission before the National - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32025-DB WP No. 9827 of 2015 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Therefore, we dismiss this writ petition for non prosecution as well as on merits being not maintainable. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28