Bombay High Court
ASHOK NAIKversusTHE REGISTRAR / SECRETARY, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION , DIMAPUR NAGALAND AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the petitioner must pursue remedies before the appropriate consumer forum.
Summary
Ashok Naik filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the execution of an ex parte order and a bailable arrest warrant issued by the District Consumer Commission, Dimapur, Nagaland. He argued that the High Court had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose within its local limit and cited Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents. The respondents contended that the petitioner had adequate statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and should approach the appropriate forum or the jurisdictional High Court. The Court observed that the notice was served, albeit in a slightly incorrect name, and that no irretrievable prejudice existed as the warrant was bailable. It further held that the petitioner had efficacious remedies before the consumer forum and that the jurisdictional principle under Article 227 meant only the High Court of the forum’s region could entertain the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking jurisdiction.
Issues considered
- Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 227.
- Whether the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction despite the availability of alternative remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Whether the alleged mis‑service of notice (wrong name) vitiates the execution order and warrant.
- Whether the issuance of a bailable warrant creates irretrievable prejudice justifying extraordinary relief.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- consumer forum
- execution order
- Article 227
- alternative remedy
- service of notice
- bailable warrant
Judgment
906 WP-11420-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11420 OF 2026
Ashok Naik ..Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar/Secretary, District Consumer
Commission, Dimapur, Nagaland & ors. …Respondents
Mr. Karan Adhik, i/b Mr. Kayval Shah, for the Petitioner.
Mr. A C Bhadang, AGP for Respondent - State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
ORDER :-
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.09.10
22:21:01 +0530
1. Heard Mr. Karan Adhik, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP for the State.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an order to quash
and set aside the execution of the purported ex parte order
passed by the District Consumer Forum, Dimapur, Nagaland in
CFD No.06/19 and a warrant of arrest issued by the said
District Commission in execution of the said order.
3. Mr. Adhik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, this Court would have the jurisdiction to
entertain the petition as the cause of action has arisen within
SAINATH 1/4
906 WP-11420-26.DOC
the local limit of the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance was
placed by Mr. Adhik on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra &
ors.1, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Bhajan & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors2.
4. Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP, opposed the writ petition.
It was submitted that, the petitioner has the statutory remedies
before the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
(“Act, 2019”) and, even otherwise, the petitioner can approach
the jurisdictional High Court if the petitioner intends to invoke
the writ jurisdiction despite the availability of the alternate
statutory remedy.
5. From the perusal of the averments in the petition, it
becomes abundantly clear that, the service of the notice in the
consumer complaint and even the process in the execution
petition is not disputed though those processes were said to be
served on the petitioner in the wrong name of Ashok Nair
instead of Ashok Naik. In strict sense, the petitioner cannot
claim that, he has not been served with the process and the
orders came to be passed without service of notice/process.
1 (2000) 7 SCC 640
2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 358
SAINATH 2/4
906 WP-11420-26.DOC
6. Secondly, this Court finds there is no element of the
irretrievable prejudice as the District Consumer Commission
has issued bailable warrant addressed to the Police Inspector,
Byculla Police Station. Under the said warrant, the petitioner
has been directed to be released on bail on the condition of
appearing before the District Consumer Commission, upon
furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.
7. Thirdly, this Court finds that, the petitioner has the
efficacious remedies before the forums constituted under the
Act, 2019. The reasons ascribed in the petition do not justify the
invocation of the writ jurisdiction despite the availability of the
statutory remedies.
8. Lastly, in the view of this Court, the principle enunciated
in the case of Navinchandra Majithia (supra), does not govern
the facts of the case at hand as the challenge is essentially to an
order passed by the quasi judicial authority which is amenable
to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.
Ordinarily, only the High Court within whose jurisdiction the
order of the subordinate Court/Tribunal has been passed would
have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution. Prima facie, it does not appear that, the cause
of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
SAINATH 3/4
906 WP-11420-26.DOC
9. Resultantly, the petition does not deserve to be entertained
by this Court.
10. The Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed with liberty to the
petitioner to work out his remedies before the appropriate
Forum/Court.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH 4/4
Checking your session…