Have No Superintendence Over NCDRC Which Is Situated In Delhi: Rajasthan High Court

Recently, a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court, citing lack of jurisdiction, has set aside the decision rendered by its single-judge bench quashing the orders of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Previously, Jaipur Development Authority had preferred an appeal against the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (Jaipur) award before NCDRC. This appeal was rejected by the Commission on 14.06.2022 for non-appearance of the counsel for JDA. An application to recall the said order was also dismissed by NCDRC on 13.04.2023.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal held that the single judge bench of the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 227 [Power of Superintendence over all courts within its territorial jurisdiction] challenging the NCDRC orders dated 14.06.2022 and 13.04.2022.

“…the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition have been passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, over which Rajasthan High Court does not have superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India, therefore, in our considered view, the present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India was not maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand had also restored the appeal before NCDRC to its original number for fresh adjudication.

On another note, the court has now pointed out that the single-judge bench only referred to Article 226 in its order instead of 227, though the writ petition was originally filed under Article 227. Due to the above errors, the division bench, by allowing the special civil writ filed by consumer-complainant Rajeev Chaturvedi, quashed the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the single-judge bench. The High Court has also granted JDA the liberty to approach the High Court that has proper territorial jurisdiction to hear the challenge against NCDRC's orders.

Before reaching the above decision, the division bench also discussed the precedents in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12 and M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 567.

In Alan Bandyopadhyay, the apex court underscored that any decision of a tribunal (inclusive of one passed under S. 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985) can only be scrutinized by a High Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the tribunal in question. Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the apex court had clarified then that all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.

Similarly, in M/S Universal Sompo, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that when the party aggrieved has an alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, the Supreme Court should not entertain a petition seeking special leave. The Division Bench also clarified then that a special leave to appeal will lie only against orders passed by NCDRC in its original jurisdiction.

“…As per M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)..the petitioner should first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ petition under Article 226…or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227... The writ petition having been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of the orders passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, Rajasthan High Court was not the jurisdictional High Court…”, the division bench of Rajasthan High Court stated in the order.

Background

In 2017, Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered JDA to deposit Rs.46,40,400/- along with interest @ 9% interest from the date of each deposit in favour of the complainant. It was also held that the complainant should receive Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceedings with interest @ 9% from the date of order. JDA had allegedly deposited the said amount due to an interim order passed by NCDRC in appeal. After such deposit was made by JDA, the appeal itself got dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

In an application made for the grant of special leave to appeal, the apex court directed JDA to approach the appropriate high court against NCDRC's orders.

At the Rajasthan High Court, the single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the original order passed by Jaipur State Commission had come into operation with the dismissal of the appeal and restoration petition filed before NCDRC. For this reason, Rajasthan High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, held Justice Dhand. By citing a recent decision, Justice Dhand also added that orders by the National Commission under Section 58(a) (i), (iii), and (iv) of CPA, 2019 can be challenged before the 'concerned high court' having jurisdiction under Article 226(2) where the cause of action has arisen in whole or in part.

According to PTI news, the consumer in this case was a plot owner who paid over Rs 46 lakhs for JDA's 'Anand Vihar Residential Scheme' introduced in 2014. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the plot allotted to him under the scheme, the consumer approached the State Commission in 2017.

(With Inputs from Sheryl Sebastian & Rashmi Bagri)

For Appellant: Adv. Manoj Khanna. with Ms. Chandrika Kumpawat, Adv.

For Respondents: Adv. Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Dharma Ram, Adv.

Case Title: Rajeev Chaturvedi v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority

Case No: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 157/2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19865/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 39

Click Here To Read/ Download Order