IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.07.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.1659 of 2004 Mahaveer Bhandari … Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. 1. Chief Pot Master, Chennai General Post Office, Chennai-600 001 2. Senior Superintendent, Department of Posts, India, Chennai City North Division, Ayyanavaram, Chennai-600 023. 3. The Director, Head Post Office, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 ... Respondents/Respondents Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CMP No.249 of 2003 in APSR.No.336 of 2003 and condone the delay of 112 days in filing AP SR No.336 of 2003. For Petitioner : Mr.Nagusah For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Chakravarthi,SCGC ORDER Inveighing the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CMP No.249 of 2003 in APSR.No.336 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both. 3. Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The revision petitioner herein intended to prefer appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Commission impugning and challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai(South). However, there was a delay in filing such appeal and as such CMP No.249 of 2003 in APSR.No.336 of 2003 was filed to get the delay condoned, but it was dismissed by the the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated 15.12.2003. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on the main ground that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for getting the delay of 112 days condoned in filing the appeal as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, unjustifiably, without following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, reiterating the grounds as set out in the memorandum of revision, the learned counsel prays for setting aside that order. 5. At the outset itself, I would like to refer to the following two precedents: 1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and another), certain excerpts from it would run thus: "8. As far as the first submission is concerned,it is settled law that before approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the bounden duty of a person to exhaust all alternate remedies. At the same time, it is not as if this court has no power to entertain the writ petition when there are alternate remedies. before entertaining such writ petition, courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further whether the alternate remedy will be a long drawn process and whether the circumstances of the case required an immediate redressal to the affected person. In cases where there are clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice or when authorities act totally without jurisdiction, court will entertain writ petition and adjudicate the matter. But at the same time, it has to be pointed out that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not take up the exercise of examining the disputed question of fact and render factual finding. Normally once the writ petition is admitted, at the time of final disposal the court will not drive the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parties to the appellate forum unless there are disputed questions of fact and when all required materials are available before court." 2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore), certain excerpts from it run thus: "16. Arguing upon maintainability of this revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner again relied upon G.Rajamani v Petchimuthu and others, 2003 (1) CTC 300: 2003(2) LW 363 and submitted that inspite of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In those cases, the question as to the maintainability of a revision under Article 227 de hors the provisions made in Section 27 about the availability of appellate jurisdiction has not been dealt with; whereas the same was dealt with in a later case M/s.Max worth Homes Ltd. v. V.Raman 2005(2) CTC 258: 2005(3) LW 455, in the following line: "The present order which is under challenge in the above revision came to be passed was only the said circumstances under Section 27 of the Act. As such it cannot be suggested that no appeal shall lie as against the said order. Even otherwise, Section 21 (b) of the Act confers wide powers to the National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in respect of any matter pending or orders passed by the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the light of such wide powers conferred upon the National Commission and in the light of the present facts on hand, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution." 6. A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the National forum under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by a party concerned; while so, invocation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person and filing of revision as against the orders of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not lie. Hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ revision is dismissed. However, it is open for the revision petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, namely, the National Commissioner under the Act. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. msk To The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai (South) 1 cc To Mr.N.Nagusah, Advocate, SR.48589 1 cc To Mr.A.S.Chakravarthy, Advocate, SR.47639 C.R.P.(NPD).No.1659 of 2004 BKY (CO) RH (26.7.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/