Supreme Court dismisses Writ Challenging State Consumer Commission's Order

Supreme Court dismisses Writ Challenging State Consumer Commission's Order

The Supreme Court (SC) in the case titled Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu I.C.U. (Petitioner) v. Manoj Upadhyaya (Respondent), opined that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging judgments and orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) is not maintainable.

The SC bench comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari said while dismissing the Special Leave Petition that "The High Court after having held the writ petition to be maintainable has dismissed the Writ Petition."

The Top Court added, "Despite the attention of the High Court having been drawn to Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, (2012) 8 SCC 524 without even dealing with or discussing the judgment and the reason for its inapplicability, the High Court has chosen to rely upon the decision of Single Judge of Orissa High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad to hold that the writ petition was maintainable."

The litigation background of the case is that an order was passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh wherein it dismissed a revision petition upholding the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, and the same was challenged before the High Court (HC) by filing a writ petition.

An objection was raised by the Registry on the same and it relied on the judgment of the Top Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 524] wherein it held that no writ petition lies against the order of the State Commission.

The issue before the HC was - whether in the exercise of revisional powers by State Commission u/S.17(1)(b), any remedy is available before the National Commission?

The HC held that neither revisional jurisdiction nor appellate Jurisdiction by the National Commission could be exercised against the impugned orders passed by the State Commission. It proceeded to consider the matter on merits by rejecting the objection as to jurisdiction.

The HC further observed that the Court has the power under Article 226 in matters of this nature where orders of statutorily created Tribunals (District Forum & State Commission) are under challenge, is extremely limited, and dismissed the writ petition.

However, the Apex Court emphasized the point that in Cicily case, the SC in its judgment held that the order of the National Consumer Commission is incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the HC, as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27 A(1)(c) lies to the SC.

The SC held, "We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of Cicily (supra). The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."