Rajasthan High Court States It Has No Superintendence Over Delhi NCDRC

Rajasthan High Court States It Has No Superintendence Over Delhi NCDRC

Refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in previous cases

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

The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Bhuwan Goyal held that the single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand 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.

It stated, “The impugned orders challenged in the writ petition have been passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, over which the Rajasthan High Court did not have superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition under Article 227 was not maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court.”

The matter pertained to the appeal of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) against the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) award before the NCDRC. On 14 June 2022, the NCDRC rejected the appeal for non-appearance of JDA’s counsel. On 13 April 2023, it also dismissed the application to recall the order.

However, the single-judge bench had quashed the NCDRC orders and restored the appeal before the NCDRC for fresh adjudication.

The judges have now pointed out that in his order, the single judge bench only referred to Article 226 instead of Article 227, though the writ petition was originally filed under Article 227.

Thus, due to the error, the division bench allowed the special civil writ filed by a consumer-complainant Rajeev Chaturvedi. It quashed the 19 January 2023 order passed by Justice Dhand. The bench also granted JDA the liberty to approach the court, having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the challenge against the NCDRC order.

Additionally, the division bench discussed the precedents in the Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr cases.

In the Alapan case, the Supreme Court highlighted that any decision of the tribunal (including the one passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985), could be scrutinized only by a high court, which had the territorial jurisdiction over the tribunal.

While relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench in the L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India case, the apex court had clarified that all decisions of the tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B would be subject to scrutiny before the related division bench of the high court.

Similarly, in the Universal Sompo case, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that when the aggrieved party had an alternate remedy to approach the high court, the top court (while invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction), should not entertain a petition seeking special leave. The judges had also clarified that a special leave to appeal would lie only against the NCDRC orders passed by its original jurisdiction.

Thus, Justice Bhandari and Justice Goyal stated, “As per the Universal Sompo (supra), the petitioner should first approach the jurisdictional high court either by way of a writ petition under Article 226 or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. In the writ petition filed under Article 227 seeking quashing of the orders passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, the Rajasthan High Court had had no jurisdiction.”

In 2017, the Rajasthan SCDRC had ordered JDA to deposit Rs.46,40,400 along with interest at 9 percent (from the date of each deposit) in favor of the complainant. It held that the complainant should receive Rs.2 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.50,000 as the cost of the proceedings with interest at 9 percent. The JDA allegedly deposited the amount due to an interim order passed by the NCDRC in an appeal. However, for want of prosecution, the appeal was dismissed in default.

In the application for granting special leave to appeal, the top court had directed the JDA to approach the appropriate high court against the NCDRC order.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dhand had held that the original order passed by the Jaipur SCDRC had come into operation with the dismissal of the appeal and restoration petition filed before the NCDRC. Thus, the Rajasthan High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Justice Dhand had also added that the NCDRC orders under Section 58(a) (i), (iii), and (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 could be challenged before the high court having jurisdiction under Article 226(2) where the cause of action arose in whole or in part.