906 WP-11420-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11420 OF 2026 Ashok Naik ..Petitioner Versus The Registrar/Secretary, District Consumer Commission, Dimapur, Nagaland & ors. …Respondents Mr. Karan Adhik, i/b Mr. Kayval Shah, for the Petitioner. Mr. A C Bhadang, AGP for Respondent - State. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER :- 1. Heard Mr. Karan Adhik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP for the State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an order to quash and set aside the execution of the purported ex parte order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dimapur, Nagaland in CFD No.06/19 and a warrant of arrest issued by the said District Commission in execution of the said order. 3. Mr. Adhik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the cause of action has arisen within SAINATH 1/4 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.10 22:21:01 +0530 906 WP-11420-26.DOC the local limit of the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance was placed by Mr. Adhik on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.1, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors2. 4. Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP, opposed the writ petition. It was submitted that, the petitioner has the statutory remedies before the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“Act, 2019”) and, even otherwise, the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional High Court if the petitioner intends to invoke the writ jurisdiction despite the availability of the alternate statutory remedy. 5. From the perusal of the averments in the petition, it becomes abundantly clear that, the service of the notice in the consumer complaint and even the process in the execution petition is not disputed though those processes were said to be served on the petitioner in the wrong name of Ashok Nair instead of Ashok Naik. In strict sense, the petitioner cannot claim that, he has not been served with the process and the orders came to be passed without service of notice/process. 1 (2000) 7 SCC 640 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 358 SAINATH 2/4 906 WP-11420-26.DOC 6. Secondly, this Court finds there is no element of the irretrievable prejudice as the District Consumer Commission has issued bailable warrant addressed to the Police Inspector, Byculla Police Station. Under the said warrant, the petitioner has been directed to be released on bail on the condition of appearing before the District Consumer Commission, upon furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. 7. Thirdly, this Court finds that, the petitioner has the efficacious remedies before the forums constituted under the Act, 2019. The reasons ascribed in the petition do not justify the invocation of the writ jurisdiction despite the availability of the statutory remedies. 8. Lastly, in the view of this Court, the principle enunciated in the case of Navinchandra Majithia (supra), does not govern the facts of the case at hand as the challenge is essentially to an order passed by the quasi judicial authority which is amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. Ordinarily, only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of the subordinate Court/Tribunal has been passed would have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Prima facie, it does not appear that, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. SAINATH 3/4 906 WP-11420-26.DOC 9. Resultantly, the petition does not deserve to be entertained by this Court. 10. The Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate Forum/Court. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH 4/4