1 wp 8624.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8624 OF 2010 Prakash Amrutlal Changedia .. Petitioner Versus Shrikant Nayansukh Katariya & anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8625 OF 2010 Prakash Amrutlal Changedia .. Petitioner Versus Nayansukh Motilal Katariya & anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8626 OF 2010 Prakash Amrutlal Changedia .. Petitioner Versus Manisha Sanjay Katariya & anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8627 OF 2010 2 wp 8624.10 Prakash Amrutlal Changedia .. Petitioner Versus Shyama Nayansukh Katariya & anr. .. Respondents Shri C. R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner in all matters. Shri R. R. Mantri, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 in all matters. The Respondent No. 2 served. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner assails the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar and the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 85/2009. 2. The District Consumer Redressal Forum in a complaint filed by the present respondents directed the present petitioner to pay the amount as directed in the said order. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed statutory appeal before the State Consumer Commission. The State Commission initially passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount as 3 wp 8624.10 per Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner aggrieved thereby filed writ petition before this Court. This Court dismissed the said writ petition upholding the order passed by the Appellate Forum. Thereafter, the State Commission i. e. the Appellate Forum dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Commission in the present writ petitions. 3. Shri Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is without jurisdiction and when the order is without jurisdiction, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can entertain the petitions. The learned counsel submits that, this Court in a group of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 5223/2009 and other connected petitions has held that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. According to the learned counsel the dismissal of appeal would not come in his way and the present writ petitions are still maintainable. 4 wp 8624.10 4. Per contra, Shri Mantri, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner had chosen to prosecute the remedy of appeal. The appeal could not have been entertained without the statutory deposit of amount. The petitioner had challenged the order of the State Commission directing petitioner to deposit 50% amount as statutory deposit in a writ petition before this Court. In the said writ petition also the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum to entertain and pass the impugned judgment was challenged. This Court dismissed the said writ petition and thereafter the State Commission has passed the order declining to entertain the appeal on account of non deposit of the statutory deposit. The learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6143/2009 Abhay Narayan Raje and others Vs. Shrikant Ramesh Bhalerao and others has held that the District Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the depositor and the complaint would also be maintainable against the persons like the petitioner. 5. The issue whether the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is a judgment coram non judice would not be germane in the present case. The petitioner has chosen 5 wp 8624.10 statutory remedy available to him and had filed a substantive appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The State Commission i. e. the Appellate Authority had passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit the 50% of the amount. The said order was challenged before this Court in writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed. Even the jurisdiction of the District Forum was assailed in the said writ petition. After disposal of the said writ petition, still the petitioner failed to deposit the statutory amount required for entertaining the appeal. On failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount, the State Commission eventually dismissed the appeal. The petitioner had failed to comply the order of statutory deposit passed by the State Commission and upheld by this Court in the writ petition. The petitioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. 6. I had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner even now is ready to deposit the statutory amount required for entertaining the appeal by the State Commission and that if the petitioner deposits the amount I would direct the State Commission to consider the appeal on merits. The learned counsel on instructions stated that the 6 wp 8624.10 petitioner is not in a position to deposit the amount. 7. Entertaining the writ petition would tantamount to circumventing the orders passed by this Court in writ petition wherein this Court had confirmed the order passed by the State Commission directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount. 8. It would be inappropriate to consider the present writ petition de-hors the orders passed by this Court earlier. As the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount of statutory deposit, the Court below was justified in dismissing the appeal for non deposit of the statutory amount. 9. In the light of above the present writ petitions cannot be entertained and the same are dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11