IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.647 of 2005 SRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA son of Sri Devendra Prasad Shrivastava, Principal of Mukul Industries Training Centre, Mirganj, resident of village Mirganj, P.O. Mirganj, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj. …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , through Director General Employment of Training (D.G.E. & T)) New Delhi. 2. The State Consumer Redressal Commission Bihar, Biscomaun Bhawan, 3rd floor, Patna, through its President. 3. The President, State Consumer Redressal Commission Bihar, Biscomaun Bhawan, 3rd floor, Patna. 4. The District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj, through its Chairman. 5. The Chairman, District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj. 6. Birendra Prasad Tiwary son of Sri S.N. Tiwary, resident of village Dahi Bhatta, P.O. Dahi Bhatta, P.S. chkagaon, District Gopalganj. 7. Nikhil Nawendu son of Sri Birendra Prasad Tiwary, R/o village Dahi Bhatta, P.O. Dahi Bhatta, P.S. Uchkagaon, District Gopalganj at present resident of Sareyan Kali Sthan in ward No.1, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj …Respondents. ----------- 2 06.05.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.05.2003 (Annexure-6), passed in case No. 26 of 2001 by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj, whereby the complaint filed by respondents no.6 & 7 in terms of Section 11 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘Act’) has been allowed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid 2 judgment and order, preferred appeal No. 296 of 2003 in terms of Section 15 of the Act before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna, which has been dismissed by a judgment and order dated 9.9.2004 (Annexure- 7). 3. Under the scheme of the Act, if any person is aggrieved by an order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its power under Section 17 of the Act, may appeal to the National Commission under Section 19 of the Act, whereafter if any person is aggrieved by an order passed by the National Commission, in exercise of its power under section 21 of the Act, may appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of section 23 of the Act. 4. Apparently, petitioner contested the matter before the District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj and State Commission, Bihar, Patna and when order dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure-6) and order dated 9.9.2004 (Annexure-7) were passed against him by the aforesaid District 3 Forum and State Commission respectively, the only remedy available to the petitioner was to file an appeal before the National Commission in terms of Section 19 of the Act. Unfortunately without going to the National Commission, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present writ petition is completely misconceived and is not at all maintainable before this Court. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)