2022 (5) TMI 793 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - appropriate forum - whether, against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that in the present case, the appeal before the National Commission was against the order passed by the State Commission under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act. Therefore, against the order passed by the State Commission passed in a complaint in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act, an appeal to the National Commission was maintainable, as provided under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. As per Section 67 of the 2019 Act, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court. Therefore, an appeal against the order passed by the National Commission to this Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act. The remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of M/S. ESTRALLA RUBBER VERSUS DASS ESTATE (PRIVATE) LTD 2001 (9) TMI 1144 - SUPREME COURT , which has been consistently followed by this Court. Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was not maintainable. The view taken by the High Court is agreed upon - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
2. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 227 against the NCDRC order.
3. Scope and ambit of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):

The primary issue for consideration was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition against an order passed by the National Commission under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically Sections 58 and 67. Section 58 outlines the jurisdiction of the National Commission, including appeals against orders of any State Commission. Section 67 specifies that an appeal to the Supreme Court is maintainable only against orders made by the National Commission under sub-clauses (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58. Consequently, no appeal lies to the Supreme Court against orders passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii), thereby making a writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court maintainable.

2. Maintainability of a writ petition under Article 227 against the NCDRC order:

The Court reaffirmed that the National Commission is considered a 'Tribunal' vested with judicial powers of the State, as established in the case of Associate Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma. This classification allows the High Court to exercise its powers of superintendence under Article 227 over the National Commission.

Further, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which upheld the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226/227 for judicial review of tribunal decisions. This ensures that aggrieved parties have a remedy before the High Court, thereby safeguarding access to justice.

3. Scope and ambit of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution:

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 227, it must exercise this jurisdiction within the established parameters. The scope of Article 227 is limited to ensuring that tribunals and lower courts function within their jurisdiction and do not act illegally or with material irregularity.

The Court cited the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., which delineates the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The High Court must bear in mind these limitations, especially when granting interim relief or stay orders.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court did not err in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's jurisdiction while reiterating the need for the High Court to exercise its powers under Article 227 within the specified limits. The matter on merits remains pending before the High Court, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.