IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2122 of 2005 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office (Region- III)J.C. Roqad, Patna through the Asst. General Manager. 2. State Bank of India, Rajgir Branch Rajgir District Nalanda through Branch Manager……Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Disitrict Consumer Forum, Patna Biscomun Bhawan IIIrd Floor West of Gandhi Maidan in the town & district patna through the President. 3. The Banking OMBUDSMAN Biscomun Bhawan IInd Floor, West of Gandhi Maidan in the Town & District Patna through the Deputy Secretary. 4. The Treasury Officer, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif in the District of Nalanda. 5. The Accountant General Birachand Patel Path, Patna. 6. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o late S.P. Kkushtwar, R/o D-67,Shri Krishnapuri,P.S.Shrikrishnapuri Patna-800001 ….Respondents. ----------- 2 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners questioning the validity and legality of order dated 13th November, 2004 (Annexure-1) passed in complaint case No. 12 of 2000 by the learned District Consumer Forum, Patna, whereby, a complaint petition filed by respondent no.6 under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘Act’) has been adjudicated upon and finally decided in terms of section 14 of the Act by the learned District Consumer Forum, Patna. 2. Under the scheme of the Act, any 2 person aggrieved by an order passed by the District Consumer Forum, is entitled to file an appeal before the State Commission under Section 15 of the Act and after disposal of such an appeal, if any person is further aggrieved , he is entitled to file an appeal before National Commission under Section 19 of the Act and finally, if any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the National Commission, he could file an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in terms of Section 23 of the Act. 3. The petitioners without filing any statutory appeal have preferred the present writ petition raising a dispute regarding certain questions of fact and seek interference by this Court on that ground. In the factual background of this case, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the State Commission against the order impugned and should have raised all the issues of fact which have been raised in the present proceeding. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners have participated in the proceeding before the District Consumer Forum and have filed their show cause resisting the prayer made in the complaint petition filed by respondent no.6. The show cause filed by the petitioners has not been accepted and complaint filed by the respondent no.6 has been allowed by a reasoned and 3 speaking order. Further more, the Apex Court by its order dated 19.7.2010 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(S). 17068-17069/2010 has laid down a ratio that any petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by District Consumer Forum/State Commission is an abuse of the process of the Court and High Court should not entertain such petition even for a single day . 5. In the factual background of the case, and law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above, the present writ petition appears to be completely misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. On realization of costs from the petitioners, the same may be paid to respondent No.6, who is a widow and has made to suffer due to inaction of the petitioners. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)