H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Civil Writ Petition No. 1938 of 2001 Petitioners 1. J.S. Ahluwalia, aged 61 years, S/o. Sri Darbara Singh Alhluwaiia, R/o. Indrasen Nagar, 27, Kholi, Mangia, Bilaspur. 2. Mrs. Arvinder Ahluwalia, aged 47 years, W/o. J.S. Ahluwalia, R/o. Indrasen Nagar, 27, Kholi, Mangla, Bilaspur. Versus Respondents 1. Arya_ Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti, through President Arya Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Deputy Registrar Co—operative Societies, Composite Building, Bilaspur (CG). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Mukesh Sharma, counselforthe petitioners. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 26‘“ day or September, 2008) The petitioners, by this petition, seeks a direction to the first respondent to hand over the plot Nos 4 and 5 situated in the Arya Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur, to the petitioners within a reasonable time. 2) The facts in nutshell, as ‘averred in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are members of the first respondent‘vtgociety developed in the ,year 1989. The petitioners applied for allotment of plots in the colony. According to the petitioners, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.55,000/—' in total on various dates to the first respondent society for allotment of plots to them. , @ The first petitioner was allotted one plot and second plot was not allotted to them. On the representations made by the petitioners, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 20-11-1996 (Annexure P/3) directed the first respondent to allot the adjacent plot to the first petitioner J.S. Ahluwalia on receipt of the amount and fee. Despite the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the plot was not allotted to the petitioners; 3) Being aggrieved, the petitioners raised a dispute by filing complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (For short, “the District Forum") being case Nos. 216/99 and 217/1999 The District Forum, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, ordered as follows: “9. W13 11W 55. 29am? 3% 3mm Wm? Etta? 3mm as? 337$ m mega met 2:9,ooo/— 250 (qa‘ht mma‘tei)aan3wwuasmfteo@1g0fm§zaft 3Wa$92%u&rom%m3mafél 2. Wmaem/Watamzawa?mw smear a??? 3W 65? 321$ m WW en‘sr 30,ooo/— 2a (Etta sat? m a? 2?.) 3ft? 321 It? W oc.oc.eo 2% 1177f titer a§t313m3fta$?2%ut%roatfkf$m3maf§/ 3. Eta? WWW a2? 3mm a 9 5. 29,ooo/— (II—cat? eat? a), 29,ooo/— (each? em? a.) W at? 3m Eta—E ad yoo/— 2?. (11m a? 2a.), yoo/— 2?. (In? a? 2?.) am an? 8ft 3m Eta—El 8. 3W593112tfra22m¥r21t2rm3m$31323mt $21 ’. m3aéeta5?vgayf%tWE§.e9a/ssatm‘tatttam @Wew/Watwiftmdw’ 3 $1» 4) Being aggrieved, the first respondent society preferred an appeal being Appeai Nos.93IBSP/00 & 94IBSP/OO before the M.Pr State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, “the State Commission”). The State Commission, after. hearing learned counsel for the parties, directed the first respondent to return the amount of Rs.25,700/- and Rs. 30,7OOI- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum as awarded by the District Forum along with costs of Rs.j000/— throughout to the petitioners (respondents therein), within a period of two months from the date of receipt 'of certified copy of the order, failing which the interest was to be payable at the rate of 15% per annum. 5) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the ‘ Constitution of India on the ground that the order passed by the order dated 16-4—2001 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Commission was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and the same violates the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners’as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitiones were deprived of one residential plot. The first l respondent discriminated the persons similarly situated without. any plausible reasons. l a 6) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this is a case where constitutional right has been violated though writ petition is maintainable, not the appeal or revision as envisaged under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act, 1986’). g 7) Per contra, Mr. Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing‘for the respondent No.1 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the efficacious alterntive statutory remedy is available to the petitioners. It was further 4 ; a cotended hat the petitione e lready wihdrawn‘ th amont as > n t rs hav a t e u irect by the Ste omsio. Thus, the petitioners ave n hallene the ame in t petitiOn. .Th petitioners re estopped fro hallging the sae eith before‘ this court or beore the Natial cen m er f on Commssi. ion 8) Be that a it y, withot expsin any opinion on the mrits ofth s ma u resg e e e h A 16 r bte th cas, te ct, 98 was enacted to povide for etr protection of e Vtt c d t p an ineress of the onsumers an urther to provide seedy d simple redressa to csr disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is souht o be l onume g t set up at he district Sate and ntra level. t , Cel s 9) Sectin 19 f the onsumer Protection Act, 1986 vides for an o o C pro apeal hic reads a under: p wh s “19. Apeals. Any persn agrieved by a rd made y the State Commssion in exer of its - poers nferred b sub—clause (i) of'cause (a) of section 7 may pre an apal against such order to h Ntional Commissio within perod o hirty d from the at of the order in such form and manner may be prescribed: te a n a i f t ays de as Provided tha the National Commission may entertai a appe after te expiry of he said period of thirty ays if it satisfi that there was sufficient cae r not filing t within that erd." urh dr 3 the ct a r md b Fter, une Section 2 of A, 1986 aginst the orde ae y Nn Cio is beor t Seme the atioal ommissn an appeal maintainable fe he upr Curt. o 10) Hierarchy of appeals is provided under the provisions of the Act, 1986. lt is well settled principles of law that if hierarchy of appeals is provided, there should not be a departure in the normal course, except in extraordinary and special circumstances. In the present case, nothing is extraordinary or special circumstances as the petitioners have chosen the ded ta Cmisn h o locus to cg s he e a m p o g n oer b i cise w co y l 1 fer pe t n n al h t d is ed us fo i pio @ Consumer Forum and thereafter the order was passed which has already been complied with by the petitioners.“ 11)’ . Normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. (See State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and \Lanother’, U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey and anotherz and Secy. U.P. High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad & another V. H.K.La13, Dhampur Sugar Mil/s Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others 4, M.P.state Agra Industries Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jahan Khan5 and Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and another with Platinum Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corpn. and anotheP. z MTZ) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove this petition Is dismissed as not maintainable However it is open to the petitioners if so adwsed to take recourse to the alternative statutory forum that may be available to them under the provisions of Iaw. V i x_ , .. Sd/- V ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri ‘i Judge N (2005) 6 scc 499 (2005) 8 scc 264 (2007) 2 scc 216 4 (2007) 3 scc 33s ALR 2007 sc 3 153 (2007) 9 scc 593 t