BAJIRAO Vs. SANJAY PRAKASHCHAND KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays to quash and set aside the Order dt.16.2.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Buldana in Case No.348 of 1998 and Order dt.13.5.1999 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State in Appeal No.700 of 1999.

(2.) The question that arises in this petition is as to whether the petitioner, who has an alternative, efficacious and cheaper statutory remedy of appeal available, can, without invoking such statutory remedy of appeal, approach the High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Our answer to the said question is in the negative for the reasons given in the following paras.

(3.) Mr.R.L.Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to submit that merely because the alternate statutory remedy is available, jurisdiction of the High Court is not affected under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in a case where the Authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. He relied upon the ruling in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, 1999 AIR(SC) 22. It was observed in paras 20 and 21 thus :