IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No. 2306 of 2007 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14667/2006 DATED 01/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ THE SECRETARY, VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. O.RANJINI, D/O. KARUNAKARAN, NALLERI HOUSE, NEAR KAVITHA THEATRE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2306 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.14667 of 2006. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by his orders dated 1st June, 2007 on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative effective and efficacious remedy by way of appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (2) The one and the only contention that is canvassed by the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties and secondly, that, if the petitioner is relegated to file an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, he might have to deposit certain amount. (3) The learned Single Judge has negatived both the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (4) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. (5) We are not satisfied with the submission made by the WA.No.2306 of 2007 2 learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In our opinion, the Statute provides a remedy of appeal, if for any reason, a person is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. That appellate remedy, in our opinion, is not only an effective remedy but also an efficacious remedy. By-passing that remedy, the petitioner should not have approached this Court. If it is a question of jurisdiction, the appellate authority can decide that issue also. (6) In so far as complying with the conditions prescribed for filing of an appeal is concerned, in our opinion, the appellate remedy is a statutory remedy and it is not a fundamental right of a citizen. If the Statute prescribes certain conditions to be complied with before filing of an appeal, an aggrieved person, if he wants to file an appeal, has to satisfy those conditions. (7) In that view of the matter , the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. We find no error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (8) After rejection of the writ appeal, the learned counsel WA.No.2306 of 2007 3 appearing for the appellant would submit that he may be granted 15 days' time from today to prefer an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In our opinion, if the request of the learned counsel is granted, it will not cause any prejudice to the other side. Therefore, we grant 15 days' time from today to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if he so desires, against Ext.P3 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. If for any reason, the appellant files such an appeal within the time granted by this Court, we direct the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to consider the appeal on merits without reference to the period of limitation subject to the petitioner fulfilling all the conditions prescribed for filing of an appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns