IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.17436 OF 2018 (GM-CON) BETWEEN JSS MVP HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (NIYAMITHA), JSS NAGAR, MYSORE-570 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS IN-CHARGE SECRETARY SMT G VIJAYADARSHINI W/O T N SHASHI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O JSS NAGAR, MYSORE-570 011 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NAVEEN GUDIKOTE S, ADVOCATE M/S LEX NEXUS ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES) AND SMT. G JAYAMMA W/O S M JAMBUKESHWARA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NO.71/A, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM MYSORE-570 014 (BY SRI M RUDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDERS DATED 20.03.2015 PASED BY THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE IN CC NO.62/2014 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN APPEAL NO.431/2015 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G ARE CORAM NON- JUDICE HENCE VOID AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The objection raised by the respondent to this writ petition is that the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, since the order impugned is an order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.431/2015.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the issue primarily raised here is regarding the coram non judice i.e, the dispute raised before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, itself was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner had invoked the provisions of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and therefore, the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should not have been entertained.
3. On going through the writ papers, we find that though a complaint was made by the petitioner to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the petitioner never raised a dispute under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. When the petitioner has elected to pursue the remedy under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the same could not have been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had already raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to dismiss the petition and relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy available before the National Commission. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that since this Court had stayed the execution proceedings in E.A.No.28/2018 and since this petition is dismissed on the ground of non- maintainability, a breathing time may be given to the petitioner to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
6. In the light of the above, we direct that the stay granted earlier in Ex.A.No.28/2018 shall continue for a period of 15 days to enable the petitioner to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pray for interim relief.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE JT/-