HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. No. 27123 of 2010 DATED: 25.08.2011 Between: M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. & Another .. Petitioners And 1. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and three others .. Respondents O R D E R :- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta) The main grievance of the petitioners is that even though the 1st petitioner has invoked Arbitration Clause in an application filed in C.C.I.A. No. 1909 of 2010 in C.C. No. 31 of 2010, the 1st respondent- A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, without having jurisdiction and authority of law, passed orders dated 13.09.2010 dismissing the application filed by the 1st petitioner seeking to reject the complaint on the ground that the complaint itself is not maintainable. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 13.09.2010. The learned counsel for the respondents, while making his submissions, has relied upon a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.18276 of 2010 and batch wherein it is held to the following effect: “Having regard to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court i n Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. N.K.Modi (1996(6) SCC 385) with regard to Section 3 of the 1986 Act and the ratio in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994(1) SCC 243), we are of the view that the 1986 Act, being a special enactment, created an additional remedy in favour of the consumers to raise consumer disputes before the Fora constituted under the said Act, and Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not have the effect of taking away such a remedy from the consumers as in the case of civil suits, which are in the nature of common law remedies. If a party chooses to avail a remedy other than the consumer dispute, he shall be free to do so because the remedy under the 1986 Act is not in derogation of the other remedies available to such a party and he cannot be denied such right on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, such as Arbitration Act as Section 3 of the 1986 Act is intended to provide an additional remedy to a party and the same is not meant to deny such a remedy to him. Further, by virtue of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, the parties can undoubtedly resort to filing of the complaint as specified under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The restriction as to the inherent jurisdiction would not come in the way of the complainant to file the complaint, provided he fulfils the conditions mentioned in Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it cannot be said that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint filed by respondents before it. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions are meritless and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.” He has further submitted that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment. Having perused the material placed on record and the above cited judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered view that this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered in W.P. No. 18276 of 2010 and batch, and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in the same terms as observed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. _____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 25.08.2011 ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J bcj