High Court Jurisdiction Impliedly Ousted where Efficacious Alternative Remedies Exist Under Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The petitioner, a 79-year-old individual appearing in person, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the conduct and orders of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Indore.

Previously, in WP No. 7154/2026, the High Court had directed the Forum to decide the petitioner's complaints within six months.

The petitioner alleged that following this direction, the Forum dismissed six of his complaints in a biased and retaliatory manner, violating principles of natural justice.

1. Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable against orders passed by the District Consumer Commission when specific statutory remedies exist under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The Court applied the statutory framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically Section 2(29) defining the National Commission, Section 41 regarding appeals from the District Commission to the State Commission, Section 47 regarding the jurisdiction of the State Commission (including its revisional powers), and Section 51 regarding appeals to the National Commission.

The court relied on the doctrine of "alternative efficacious remedy," which posits that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a specialized statutory machinery for appeal and revision is provided by law.

The Court examined the Petitioner’s grievances against the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum's orders and conduct in light of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It noted that Sections 41, 47, and 51 provide a complete code for challenging the legality, jurisdiction, or procedural irregularities of the District and State Commissions.

Although the Court expressed sympathy for the petitioner’s age and his status as a party-in-person, it reasoned that the jurisdiction of the High Court is "impliedly ousted" due to the existence of these proper and efficacious alternative remedies.

The Court determined that the petitioner must follow the hierarchical appellate structure—moving from the District Commission to the State Commission, then the National Commission, and ultimately the Supreme Court—rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed. However, the Court directed the petitioner to avail the proper legal remedies and instructed that if such proceedings are filed, the relevant authorities should consider them in accordance with the law, specifically taking into account the provisions of the Limitation Act regarding the time spent pursuing this writ.