IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) CO 702 of 2026 with CAN 3 of 2026 Dr. Tridib Banerjee Vs Arnab Chakraborty & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Joydip Kar, ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Ms. Somali Mukhopadhyay, Ms. A. Dutta. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kunal Saha (through VC) Mr. Aniket Chakraborty, Mr. Subhajit Karmakar. For the Applicant in : Mr. Arnab Chakraborty (In-person). CAN 3 of 2026 Judgment reserved on : 25.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 15.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. CAN 3 of 2026 in CO 702 of 2026 has been preferred by the opposite party/applicant no. 1 herein praying for leave to permit Dr. Kunal Saha to represent and assist the opposite party no. 1/complainant and make submissions on his behalf in the present proceedings before this Hon’ble Court. 2. The said prayer of the applicant is strongly objected to by the petitioner/opposite party herein on the ground that the applicant may be permitted to place his case in-person, but he cannot be permitted to be represented by any outsider. The applicant has filed orders of Coordinate Benches wherein Coordinate Benches of this Court have permitted Dr. Saha to represent the applicant in the proceeding before it. 3. The said orders are an order dated 28th November, 2025 in WPA 25801 of 2025 and an order dated 25th February, 2021 in WPA 3 of 2019. 4. Order in WPA 3 of 2019 was passed granting permission to Dr. Saha to appear before the Consumer Forum. In WPA 2580 of 2025, the Coordinate Bench was of the view that, as Dr. Saha has the right to appear before the State Commission, Dr. Saha could also represent the applicant in the said writ application. 5. The petitioner/opposite party herein who has contested the said prayer has filed an affidavit-in-opposition and stated therein that the application is mis-conceived and complete abuse of the process of law. 6. Mr. Kar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party to the CAN application submits that the Advocate’s Act 1961 specifically debars the applicant from being represented before the Hon’ble Court by an outsider. The applicant can be represented either by a learned Advocate or the applicant may appear in-person and that no case has been made out, for being represented by a third party, in this case being Dr. Kunal Saha. 7. In reply, the applicant has reiterated its own case. 8. The opposite party has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 379 para 43; (ii) Harishankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma & Anr. (1978) 2 SCC 165. 9. Mr. Kar, has argued that in the present case being C.O. 702 of 2026, the issue involved does not require the expertise of Dr. Kunal Saha as a Doctor, as the revisional application has been preferred challenging an order dated 15th January, 2026 passed by the learned President and member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-III in Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB3/315/CC/3/2026, as to why the Complaint Case being Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 2026, should not be dismissed, being not maintainable. 10. Vide the impugned order dated 15th January, 2026, the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Kolkata passed the following order:- “Order No.02 Dated : 15/01/2026 Today is date fixed for Admission Hearing. Perused letter of authorization. Heard authorized agent of complainant. It is stated that complainant’s 3 months’ old infant son Nikhil Chakraborty developed high fever on the night of 31st December 2023 and despite repeated telephonic consultation over nearly 18 hours without any physical examination, the OP No. 1 discouraged the complainant from taking the child to the Hospital and subsequently when the child was rushed to hospital no emergency protocol was followed there. It is also stated that death certificate was issued by one of the Doctor in personal letterhead. Going through the materials before us we are of the opinion that there are materials for admitting the complaint. Fix 11/2/2026 for S.R., appearance and for filing written version. Complainant is directed to take step for serving notice upon the O.P.” 11. After the said order was passed, the petitioner/opposite party herein, on being served, as directed by the District Forum, preferred the writ application on 26.02.2026. 12. It appears that the petitioner/opposite party herein admittedly did not approach the DCDRC, challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaint case, admitted by the Commission. Though, a party who has an alternative remedy can approach the High Court in revision, this Court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. (2025) 4 SCC 1, is of the view that the petitioner should have first approached the Court of first instance, with his prayer challenging the maintainability of the proceeding, when there is a specific forum to redress such grievance, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for the same. 13. Thus this Court finds no reason to entertain the writ application. 14. The CAN 3 of 2026 along with C.O. 702 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to put in appear once before the District Commission and raise the issue of maintainability and if such issue is raised, the DCDRC shall decide the said issue as a preliminary issue. 15. The writ application is disposed of. 16. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)