IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 158 OF 2010 ANTONIO PAULO LOBO ... Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Prabhakar H. Parab, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 5th March, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. On merits, we find that the Petitioner has statutory alternate efficacious remedy which the Petitioner has not availed of. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Presiding Officer was not competent to preside over under Section 22-D of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 22-D reads thus:- "Vacancy in the office of the President.- When the office of President of a District Forum, State Commission, or of the National Commission, as the case may be, is vacant or a person occupying such office is, by reason of absence or otherwise, unable to perform the duties of his office, these shall be performed by the senior-most member of the District Forum, the State Commission or of the National Commission, as the case may be". We do not find any inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Presiding Officer to preside over and decide the issue. The petition is accordingly dismissed. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.