1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.3002 of 2008 Mr.Sudhir B. Mamdapur Petitioner Vs. Mr.Vasant K. Nirkhe & anr. Respondents Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for petitioner. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. June 3, 2008 P.C. . The main relief sought in this petition reads as under: "This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the Judgment and order passed by the learned CDRF Bombay Suburban District in Complaint No.577 of 2001 dated 22.12.2003, call for the record and proceedings of the Recovery Application No.25 of 2007 pending before the CDRF Mumbai Suburban District, Criminal Case No.309/S/99 decided by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund at Bombay and after going through the same and after 2 satisfying the legality, validity and propriety thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same for the reasons disclosed in the Memo of Petition." . So far as the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No.309/S/99 is concerned, the petitioner’s remedy lies somewhere else and not by filing a writ petition on the Civil Side of this Court. In regard to the prayer for quashing the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bombay Suburban District on 22/12/2003, it is to be noted that the petitioner’s remedy was by way of filing an appeal or revision before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai and it appears that Revision Petition No.86 of 2007 was filed before the State Commission. On 19/3/2008 the Commission was pleased to reject the revision application on the ground that the directions given by it on 16/10/2007 were not complied with and the award dated 22/12/2003 passed by the District Forum had achieved finality. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by either the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bombay Suburban District and the State Commission, his 3 remedy would lie before the National Commission under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and when such a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. [(2003) 3 SCC [(2003) 3 SCC [(2003) 3 SCC 24]. 24]. 24]. Though a three Judge Bench in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society and others [AIR 2003 SC 1043] has held, by referring to the law laid down in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 1997 SC 1125], that the powers of judicial review of the High Court are not taken away, in view of the statutory remedy being available to the petitioner before the National Commission, as noted earlier, does not permit the petitioner to approach this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution at this stage. . Hence the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (B.H.MARL