M.R. Venkat Reddy, a builder, challenged before the Telangana High Court the order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 11.01.2023, which had upheld his conviction for non-compliance with a District Consumer Commission order and reduced his sentence from two years to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The original complaint arose from deficiencies in a residential flat sold by the builder, including failure to hand over the Occupancy Certificate, Revised Sanction Plan, and Completion Certificate. The respondent No.4 (husband of the deceased complainant) objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that an efficacious statutory remedy existed under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides a three-tiered appeal mechanism up to the Supreme Court. The High Court examined the appellate hierarchy under Section 27A and found the petitioner's argument that he had already exhausted his remedy by appealing to the State Commission to be untenable, noting that Section 27A contemplates a further appeal to the National Commission from the State Commission's order. The judgment text ends before the final order is recorded.