Chhedi vs State Consumer Dispute Redressal … on 17 March, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Chhedi vs State Consumer Dispute Redressal … on 17 March, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:19156
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 917 of 2026   
 
   Chhedi    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,Up,Lucknow Thru. Chairman And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Pradeep Kumar Kanaujiya, Kaushal Mani Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Brajendra Amiy   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 17
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.     

1. Heard Sri Kaushalmani Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhiraj Ojha, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Brajendra Amiy, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/Bank and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow in Appeal No.2120 of 2006: Punjab National Bank, Branch Barhni Vs. Cheedi and others.

SPONSORED

3. The learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has impleaded the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow as an opposite party to the petition, whereas, as far back as in the year 1995 in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur; (1999) 2 SCC 577 the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of courts being impleaded as opposite parties to the petition filed in the High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court and again in the year 2015 in the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujrat, (2015) 9 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid law.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have raised another preliminary objection that the validity of an order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow can be assailed by filing a revision under Section 58(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of filing a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

March 17, 2026

Ram.