Writ Petition Under Article 226 Not Maintainable Against Orders Passed By State Consumer Commission:Supreme Court

first_imgTop StoriesWrit Petition Under Article 226 Not Maintainable Against Orders Passed By State Consumer Commission:Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK15 March 2021 8:41 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court opined that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging judgments and orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not maintainable.In this case, an order passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [dismissing a revision petition upholding the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court opined that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging judgments and orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not maintainable.In this case, an order passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [dismissing a revision petition upholding the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum] was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition.  The Registry raised objection and opined that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 524] no writ petition lies against the order of the State Commission.The High Court to answer this, first considered the question whether in against exercise of revisional powers by State Commission u/S.17(1)(b), any remedy is available before the National Commission or not ? Answering this, the court held that neither revisional jurisdiction nor appellate Jurisdiction by the National Commission could be exercised against the impugned orders passed by the State Commission. The Court therefore proceeded to consider the matter on merits by rejecting the objection as to jurisdiction. It observed that the window of interference available to the Court u/Art.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. “The High Court after having held the writ petition to be maintainable has dismissed the Writ Petition on merits. Despite the attention of the High Court having been drawn to Cicily Kallarackal vs. 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 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. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of Cicily (supra)”, the Apex Court bench Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari said while dismissing the SLP.In Cicily, it was observed that the order of the National Consumer Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27 A(1)(c) lies to the Supreme Court.  “We cannot help but to state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal to such higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”, it was observed. The said judgment, however, does not discuss the maintainability of writ petition against order passed by State Consumer Commission.Case: Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu I.C.U. vs. Manoj Upadhyaya  [SLP(C) 4127/2021]Coram: Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna MurariCitation: LL 2021 SC 163Click here to Read/Download OrderRead OrderNext Storylast_img read more

Read more