Kerala High Court Says It Lacks 'Supervisory Jurisdiction' Over NCDRC

The petitioner filed an appeal against the judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in New Delhi. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the NCDRC, the petitioner approached the High Court by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu stated that NCDRC falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court and dismissed the petition as not maintainable under Article 227.

“….a close reading and comprehensive analysis of the precedents leads us to the conclusion that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 only over those courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, over the NCDRC, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”

In this case, the petitioner was ordered to compensation to the respondent in a medical negligence case by the Kerala State Commission. The first appeal filed before NCDRC was dismissed. Against the dismissal, petitioner approached High Court.

Raising preliminary objection on maintainability, the respondent contended that NCDRC, being a tribunal falling within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court, was not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court by relying upon L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (1997). Relying upon Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022), it was argued that decision of a tribunal can only considered by a High Court that has territorial jurisdiction over that tribunal.

The petitioner submitted that petition was against judgment of Kerala State Commission and that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Kerala High Court. Relying upon Ibrat Faizan v Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited (2022), it was argued that appeal against an order of NCDRC was maintainable before a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner referred to M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Suresh Chand Jain (2023) to state that an appeal against order of NCDRC was maintainable before High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

Examining the scope and similarities between Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court observed that jurisdictions under these Articles have fine distinctions. The Court noted that cause of action is a relevant aspect to confer jurisdiction to High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whereas, the Court stated that Article 227 does not confer jurisdiction to High Courts based on cause of action as provided under Article 226. Therefore, the Court clarified that Article 227 grants jurisdiction to High Courts solely over courts and tribunals located within its territorial limits, and whether the cause of action arises within this jurisdiction is not a relevant factor.

The Court resorted to M/s.Kusum Ingots and Alloys v. Union of India (2004) wherein cause of action under Article 226 was discussed and stated that it cannot be examined to consider the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227. “Arising of cause of action wholly or in part within the jurisdiction is a factor which enables a High Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 by virtue of clause (2) of Article 226. Conspicuously, such a provision is absent in Article 227. Therefore, arising of cause of action wholly or in part within the jurisdiction is not the decisive factor to determine the jurisdiction under Article 227.”

The Court that in Ibrat Faizan (supra), the Apex Court was only considering the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court within whose jurisdiction the NCDRC is situated. It stated that the term 'concerned High Court' used by Apex Court could only be understood as Delhi High Court within whose jurisdiction the NCDRC is located.

The Court referred to Apex Court decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) that referred to L. Chandrakumar (supra) which laid down that power under Article 227 can only be exercised over courts and tribunals within the territorial limits of the respective High Court.

Further, the Court resorted to Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi And Ors and stated that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of a High Court to review a Tribunal's order located outside its territorial limit has been referred to a larger bench and is currently pending before the Apex Court.

The Court thus noted that the decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) is still binding despite the reference pending before the Apex Court in Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra).

Based on the above discussions, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Ajit Joy, Aneesh James, Sayujya

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Shyam Padman, A.Ahzar, Alex M Scaria, Johnson Gomez C.M.Andrews, Boby M.Sekhar, Laya Mary Joseph, Harish Abraham, Nichu Willington, Ashwathi Shyam, S.Biju (Kizhakkanela), Sanjay Johnson, John Gomez, Abin Jacob Mathew, Arun Johny, Deebu R., Aravind Prakash, Krishnadev K., Saritha Thomas, Pavan Rose Johnson, Alen J. Cheruvil, Sahl Abdul Kader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495

Case Title: DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 18689 OF 2023

Click here to read/download Judgment