ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on admission. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short 'the State Commission') in C.C. No.17 of 2016, dated 11.10.2023. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that although the impugned order is appealable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the petitioner seeks to avail the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution, because, in the previous round, in W.P. No.10900 of 2023, this Court directed the State Commission to decide the objection raised by the petitioners therein, as a first issue while deciding the consumer complaint. This Court declined interference and disposed of the said writ petition with the emphasis that the State Commission shall ensure that a reasoned order be passed on the first issue and only if required, proceed further to decide the other issues involved in the complaint. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the arguments were advanced before the State Commission on 25.08.2023, limited to the issue of maintainability. He himself addressed the State Commission only on the question of maintainability/objection. However, the State Commission passed the final order, while deciding the issue on maintainability/objection, the Commission also decided the matter on merits. 5. It is submitted that the complaint itself is hopelessly barred by time. To wriggle out the aspect of limitation, the complainant, merely, averred that he sent a legal notice and when the requirement was not complied with, he promptly filed the complaint. Learned State Commission opined that the nature of violation brings it within the ambit of continuous cause of action. Criticizing this finding, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no proper foundation in the complaint and it was nobody's case that there existed any recurring cause of action as understood by the State Commission. He submits that, in this view of the matter, this petition may be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy. In support of maintainability of this petition, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412 . 6. He submits that, in this view of the matter, this petition may be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy. In support of maintainability of this petition, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society, (2003) 2 SCC 412 . 6. Sounding a contra note, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant drawn our attention to paragraph No. 10 of the counter where he specifically denied that the arguments advanced before the State Commission on 25.08.2023 were only confined to the question of maintainability. He submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the National Commission'). 7. It is pertinent to see the observation of this Court in W.P. No.10900 of 2023. It appears that this Court was conscious enough that against an order passed by the State Commission, there exists an appeal and therefore it was observed that "Given the specific observations made by the Commission that the objection raised by the petitioners shall be considered and decided as a first issue while deciding the consumer case, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order". However, the Court only observed that in view of Commission's own direction, it will be lawful to ensure that the said objection is decided as a first issue. 8. It is trite that "maintainability" and "entertainability" of the petition are two different facets. The constitutional remedy cannot be barred by a legislative Act. Thus, there is no quarrel about the question of maintainability. The only question is regarding "entertainability" despite availability of alternative remedy. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , opined that despite availability of statutory remedy, a petition can be entertained in certain circumstances including 1) violation of principles of natural justice, 2) if order is passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, 3) constitutionality of a provision is under challenge etc. The said judgment was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another (2005) 8 SCC 264 and it was opined as under:- "17. The said judgment was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another (2005) 8 SCC 264 and it was opined as under:- "17. ...But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...." 10. If for the sake of argument, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it makes the impugned order of learned Commission as erroneous and not without jurisdiction. Thus, it can be called in question in an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It could not be established, if the petitioner is relegated to avail the said remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it will result into any palpable injustice to the petitioner. 11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 10.04.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others, (2024) 4 S.C.R. 541 disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P. No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under: "15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the impugned order is appealable and the National Commission is best suited to decide all the factual and legal questions. Hence, the admission is declined. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the said remedy. At this stage, it is agreed between the parties that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within fifteen (15) days from today before the National Commission, the limitation will not be a hurdle for the petitioner and in that event, the National Commission, is requested to decide the appeal on merits and the appeal shall not be thrown overboard on the ground of limitation. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.