2012 (8) TMI 915 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether condoning of inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the legislature for filing the special leave petition?

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petitions against orders of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delay in filing petitions, Condonation of delay

Jurisdiction Issue:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction regarding the High Court's authority to entertain writ petitions against the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It was contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with such matters, as the National Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulates that challenges to the Commission's orders should be brought before the Supreme Court. The Court referenced a previous case to emphasize that while technical breaches may occur, the High Court can still set aside orders if deemed invalid under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court clarified that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions against Commission orders when a statutory appeal lies with the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted that bypassing the statutory appeal process is an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts.

Delay Issue:
The Supreme Court noted an unexplained delay of 1314 days in filing a petition against a specific order and 851 days against another. The petitioner cited health reasons for the delay, but the Court deemed the explanation insufficient, emphasizing that personal appearance was not necessary. Referring to a previous case, the Court outlined that condoning delays in cases involving special courts or tribunals, like those under the Consumer Protection Act, must consider the special limitation periods set by the statutes. In this instance, the Court found no valid reason to condone the significant delays, stating that doing so would effectively replace the statutory limitation period with its own discretion.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the grounds of the substantial delays in filing them. The Court highlighted that the High Courts should not question the orders of the Commission under their writ jurisdiction, as a statutory appeal route exists to the Supreme Court. The Court issued a cautionary directive to High Courts against entertaining writ petitions challenging Commission orders and instructed the dissemination of this directive to all High Courts.