Case Note & Summary
The Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (petitioners) filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 22-02-2022 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.52/2021. The dispute originated from the reclassification of electricity tariff for a service apartment from LT-2 (domestic) to LT-3 (commercial) and consequential back-billing. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were erstwhile owners of the property; respondent Nos.1 and 2 are subsequent purchasers who intervened. The provisional assessment was confirmed on 06-10-2010 and a challenge to that confirmation remains pending before the appellate authority (respondent No.3) since 2010. In the writ petition, the petitioners sought to quash the State Commission's order. At the hearing, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, contending that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a self-contained code providing an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal to the National Commission under Section 51, which requires a pre-deposit of 50% of the awarded sum. It was further argued that even questions of jurisdiction are to be adjudicated by the National Commission under Section 58, and that the writ petition was belated by four months. Reliance was placed on the decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 to assert that when an effective statutory remedy exists, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226. The court examined Sections 51, 58, 60, and 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as well as the cited precedent, and proceeded to hear arguments on the interlocutory application. The matter remained under consideration, and no final decision on maintainability or merits was recorded in the available text.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Section 51, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - The High Court was considering whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when an appeal to the National Commission is available under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The respondents argued that the Act is a self-contained code and that the petitioners must exhaust the alternative remedy, including provisions for challenging jurisdiction under Section 58. The court noted the settled law that High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 if an effective remedy is available. (Paras 4-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is maintainable when the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal before the National Commission under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Final Decision
The High Court heard arguments on the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition; the matter was taken under consideration and is pending final adjudication.
Law Points
- Availability of alternative remedy under Consumer Protection Act
- statutory appeal is an effective remedy
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be invoked when alternate remedy exists
- pre-deposit requirement under Section 51
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (10) 7
Writ Petition No.11423/2022 (GM-CON)
Justice G. Narendar, Justice P.N. Desai
Sri Sriranga, Smt. Sumana Naganand for petitioners; Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, Sri Ismail Muneeb for respondents 1 and 2; Smt. Asha Shetty for respondents 4 and 5
The Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. & Anr.
Sri Abdul Kareem, Sri Basheer Parvanta Vida, The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri A. Chandrasekhar, Smt. Kripa Chandrashekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution challenging order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of order dated 22-02-2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.52/2021.
Filing Reason
Dispute regarding categorization of electrical installation from LT-2 (domestic) to LT-3 (commercial) and consequent back-billing; provisional assessment confirmed in 2010; subsequent purchasers intervened; consumer complaint filed before State Commission resulting in impugned order.
Previous Decisions
Provisional assessment of electricity charges confirmed on 06-10-2010; challenge pending before appellate authority (Revenue Appellate Authority) since 2010; respondents 4 and 5 previously approached High Court; subsequent purchasers intervened.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal before the National Commission under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Whether the writ petition is barred by delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents argued that the Consumer Protection Act provides a self-contained code and an appeal to the National Commission under Section 51 is available, requiring pre-deposit of 50% of the awarded sum, and thus the writ petition is not maintainable.
Respondents contended that the question of jurisdiction is also to be tried by the National Commission under Section 58, and the writ petition is filed after four months delay.
Respondents relied on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 to emphasize that when an effective statutory remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi
Not yet determined as the matter was at the stage of hearing on maintainability.
Judgment Excerpts
From a reading of Section (1) of Section 51 it is apparent that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission is provided with an alternative remedy of appeal with the National Commission.
the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions.
51. Appeal to National Commission.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clauses (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order...
58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction— (a) to entertain— ... (iii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;...
Procedural History
Electrical installation for service apartment initially sanctioned under LT-2 domestic category; inspection revealed commercial use and high energy consumption; notice issued for reclassification to LT-3; provisional assessment confirmed on 06-10-2010; challenge to confirmation pending before Revenue Appellate Authority (R3) since 2010; respondent Nos.4 and 5 (erstwhile owners) approached High Court on earlier occasions; respondent Nos.1 and 2 (subsequent purchasers) intervened; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed order dated 22-02-2022 in Consumer Complaint No.52/2021; present writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 challenging that order; matter heard on interlocutory application on 17-10-2022.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019: 47, 50, 51, 58, 60, 67
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
