THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 15024 of 2010 Date: 5.7.2010 Between: M/s. Vomini Ramanamurthy Chits & Investments Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND DaliboinaRama Rao and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri I. Koti Reddy Counsel for Respondents: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 15024 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 10.12.2009 in C.C. No.272 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is a private limited company involved in the business of chits. As part of his business, the petitioner has collected amounts from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and failed to repay the same. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having failed in getting their moneys back even after the maturity date, approached Respondent No.3 with a complaint under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection, Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). The said complaint was taken on file as C.C. No.272 of 2009 and adjudicated on merits. After a detailed consideration of the material on record and the objections raised by the respondents on merits and also on the maintainability of the complaint, respondent No.3 disposed of the case in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, whereby, it has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- together with interest at 14% per annum till 18.8.2008 and at 12% per annum thereafter till the date of actual payment, besides payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the dispute pertained to recovery of money under promissory notes. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3 shows that it has framed four points and point No.3 pertains to whether it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case. Under this point, respondent No.3 has taken note of the plea of the petitioner that the amounts paid by respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner are not liable to be treated as deposits that the dispute arose only under promissory notes and that the only remedy available for respondents 1 and 2 was to file a civil Suit for recovery of the amount. This aspect was considered and rejected by respondent No.3 by holding that Exs.A1 and A2 are fixed deposit bonds, although their nomenclature was described as promissory notes. Respondent No.3, further held that the remedies available under the Act are in addition, but not in derogation of any other reliefs. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any specific provision under the Act, which expressly bars the jurisdiction of respondent No.3–forum from entertaining the dispute raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, in my opinion, this is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.3. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the findings rendered by respondent No.3 on merits, and also on its jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it is entitled to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by way of an appeal under Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner failed to show any reason whatsoever to bypass this effective remedy. Ordinarily, this Court declines to entertain the writ petitions filed bypassing the efficacious statutory remedies. The State Commission is headed by a retired judge of the High Court, for adjudication of all the disputes, including the one relating to jurisdiction and there is no reason for the petitioner to approach this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 5th July, 2010 pnb