Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked before raising maintainability before the Consumer Commission.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 15 January 2026 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata–III, in Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB3/315/CC/3/2026, whereby the Commission admitted the complaint concerning the alleged death of the complainant’s three-month-old infant and directed issuance of notice and filing of the written version.

The petitioner had not first approached the District Commission to challenge the maintainability of the consumer complaint after receiving notice.

During the proceedings before the High Court, the opposite party/applicant, Arnab Chakraborty, filed CAN 3 of 2026 seeking permission for Dr. Kunal Saha to represent and assist him and make submissions on his behalf.

The petitioner objected, contending that the applicant could either appear in person or be represented by an advocate, but could not be represented by an outsider.

Whether the opposite party/applicant could be represented and assisted by Dr. Kunal Saha, who was not appearing as the applicant’s advocate, in the present proceedings?

Whether the High Court should entertain the revisional writ application challenging the admission of the consumer complaint when the petitioner had not first raised the issue of maintainability before the District Consumer Commission?

Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to raise the objection as to maintainability before the District Consumer Commission, and whether that issue should be decided as a preliminary issue?

The Court considered the principles governing representation before courts under the Advocates Act, 1961, including the proposition that a non-advocate has no absolute right to represent another person before a court and that permission for such representation lies within the court’s discretion, relying on Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, (2018) 5 SCC 379, para. 43, and Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma, (1978) 2 SCC 165.

The Court also applied the doctrine of exhaustion of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, relying on Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, (2025) 4 SCC 1, under which a party should ordinarily first approach the forum of first instance where that forum has jurisdiction to decide the grievance.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides the appropriate statutory forum for objections concerning the maintainability of a consumer complaint.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge related to the maintainability of the consumer complaint admitted by the District Commission, rather than to an issue requiring the specialised assistance of Dr. Kunal Saha as a medical professional.

More importantly, the petitioner had not raised the maintainability objection before the District Commission, which was the forum of first instance competent to consider that objection.

Applying the principle that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy ordinarily warrants the High Court’s restraint, the Court declined to exercise its revisional writ jurisdiction at that stage.

In consequence, it did not find it necessary to grant substantive relief in the writ proceeding concerning Dr. Saha’s proposed representation; both the application and the writ proceeding were disposed of with directions permitting the petitioner to pursue the maintainability objection before the District Commission.

CAN 3 of 2026 and the writ application were disposed of.

The petitioner was granted liberty to appear once before the District Commission and raise the issue of maintainability, and the District Commission was directed to decide that issue as a preliminary issue if raised.

Any interim order stood vacated, and connected applications were consequently disposed of.