Article 227 petitions are not entertained when a statutory consumer appeal is available.

Respondent No. 3 obtained an order from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bemetara, directing a refund of his deposit with accrued interest, jointly and severally against the petitioner and PACL India Limited.

The petitioner, described as an ex-agent of PACL, challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that he was merely an agent, had no connection with the deposited amount, and should not have been held jointly liable.

He acknowledged the statutory appeal remedy but relied on *Subrata Bhattacharya v. Securities and Exchange Board of India* to contend that the High Court could nevertheless exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 227 challenging a District Commission order when a statutory appeal is available under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. Whether the petitioner could rely on *Subrata Bhattacharya* to overcome the availability of that statutory appeal.

Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides an appeal from a District Commission order to the State Commission on facts or law, ordinarily within 45 days; it also permits condonation for sufficient cause and requires an appellant ordered to pay an amount to deposit 50% of that amount.

The judgment notes that a further appeal is provided under Section 51 of the Act.

Where a statutory appellate remedy is available, the High Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227; the court treated *Subrata Bhattacharya v. Securities and Exchange Board of India*, Civil Appeal No. 13301/2015, decided 6 October 2021, as distinguishable on its facts.

The challenged order arose from a complaint under Section 35 of the 2019 Act, and Section 41 expressly provided the petitioner with an appeal to the State Commission.

The High Court therefore declined to examine the petitioner’s arguments about his agency role, the deposit, or joint liability in the Article 227 proceeding.

It also found *Subrata Bhattacharya* distinguishable and held that it did not justify entertaining the petition despite the available statutory forum.

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue that remedy in accordance with law.