I/ "^,\01'y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petjtioner Respondents W.P.fC)No.73of2010 Indira Priyadarshini Mahila Nagrik Bank Mydt, Rajpur (Chhattisgarh) through the Liquidator, Saddani Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur 2. Santosh Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Suryanarayan Pandey, Shopkeeper, R/o Jal Grih Marg, Sheetla Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3; Additional Tahsildar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Writ Petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India) ApDearance: Mr. San}ay S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORALORDER (13.01.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Petitioner, Indira Priyadarshini Mahila Nagrik Bank Mydt., Raipur, has filed this petition for the following relief(s):- "10. RELIEFfSySOUGHT: (a) for quashment of the entireprcceedings in case no. 79/2007. {nttiated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being "Corum non-judice"; (b) to set aside the alleged demand notice dated 30/10/2009 (Annexure P-1) issued bythe Addjtional Tahsildar, Rajpur • . ' ^. (c) any other order that may deem fit in the facts and circumstances ofthecase. The petitioner, thus in substance, is praying for quashment of the proceedingsof Case No. 79/2007 drawn by the Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum, Raipur. It is stated that the procee^mgs before the aforesaid forum has already been terminated by a final order dated 22 of September, 2008 (Annexure-P/5) and thereafter in execution of the said order recovery <z> ^ W.P.fCYNo. 73/2010 proceedings have already been rfrawn and the recoyery notice (Annexure-P/1) has been issued bythe AdditionaJ Tehsjldar, Raipur/respondent No.3. Mf. Sanjay S. Agrawal, iearned counsei appearing on behaff of the petitioner vehemently argues that the order passed by respondent No.1 on 22.9.20(B (Annexure-P/5) was without jurjsdjctjon, therefore, it was a nullity and execution thereof js not possible. He, therefore, submits that the entire proceedjngs ofthe Consumer Porum inciuding final order dated 22.9.2008 be quashed. Admittedly, the orcjer passed by the Consumer Forum/respondent No.1 js appealable u/s 15 ofthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is aiso noticeci that it was a bi-parte order and the petitioner herein has contested the proGeedings before the said forum. A perusal of the order passed by the forum would show that no specifjc ground relating to jurisdiGtion ofthe forum was raised by the petitioner and the forum has passed the order on the merit of the case. Thus. Jt is ciear that after passing of the order by the forum on merits, |the petitioner, who was unsuccessful party No.2 before forum, withouf a^ailing the remedy of the statutory appeal.has direetly ryshed to this Court oy filing this writ petition.that too after is^iance of recovery notice, under the RRC sent for recovery, by TehsJldar/respondenfNo.SuM 146 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. jn view ofthe above, when effective and efficacjous remedy is available, j do not find any reasons to entertain this writ petition. The petition is djsmissed af the motion stage itself. However, the petitioner would be at liberfy t<y avai! the appropriate remedy in Consumer ProtectrorrAetr1986. i Sd/- 1 SunilKumar Sinha Judge ^