Petition Under Article 227 Of Constitution Against NCDRC Order Must Be Filed Before 'Jurisdictional High Court': Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has clarified that an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action, in the first instance, had arisen and not Delhi High Court.
The Court has said that the mere location of the NCDRC at Delhi will not confer writ jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court as such writs must be filed before “Jurisdictional High Courts”.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Jain observed, “The words “jurisdictional High Court” as used in Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) cannot be automatically inferred to be Delhi High Court only. In Ibrat Faizan (supra), which related to a matter pertaining to NCDRC only, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the aggrieved party would be required to approach the “concerned High Court” having jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and such phrases “concerned High Court” and “Jurisdictional High Court” would not ipso facto mean “Delhi High Court”, more particularly, in view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (Supra)…”
Senior Advocate Jayant K. Mehta appeared for the Petitioners, whereas Advocate Avadh Bihari Kaushik appeared for the Respondents.
Several petitions were filed dealing with a question, i.e. whether an order passed by the NCDRC while considering any appeal or revision impugning order passed by the State Commission, other than the State Commission of Delhi, can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court or should any such petitioner go to the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action, in the first instance, had arisen.
The issue was squarely covered in view of the recent landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (2024). However, the Petitioners contended otherwise, and according to them, the High Court continued to have the jurisdiction to entertain such petitions.
The Court said that there was no qualm that against an order passed by NCDRC, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable before the High Court. The question was, however, which High Court.
The Court, therefore, thoroughly analysed the judgment in Siddhartha S Mookerjee(supra) and said it was quite obvious that despite the fact that situs of NCDRC was in Delhi, the Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed and held that since the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata, the jurisdictional High Court would be Calcutta High Court and mere fact that the petition had been allowed by the NCDRC would not bestow any jurisdiction to Delhi High Court.
“The above legal position was reiterated in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhya (supra) and while approving the proposition laid down in L. Chandra Kumar, it was held that any decision of Tribunal, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985, could be subjected to scrutiny only before High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned was situated.”, the Court said.
The Court emphasised that by the constitutional amendment, various Administrative Tribunals were set up across the country. It added that as of date, there are 19 Benches and an equal number of Circuit Benches in the Central Administrative Tribunal, all over India. NCDRC is a solitary National level Commission which not only has original jurisdiction but also receives appeals and revisions against the orders passed by State Commissions situated across the country.
The Court observed, “…by allowing petitions to be filed only in Delhi High Court merely on the basis of situs, may also jeopardize the right of access to justice, particularly when no cause of action had even arisen in Delhi…”
The Court also laid its emphasis on the words used in the judgment of the Apex Court Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain and Anr. (2023), i.e. “jurisdictional High Court” and not “Delhi High Court”.
It concluded, “Cause of action is bundle of facts existing at the stage of pre- institution of any case. After filing of case, merely because of the fact that the orders were passed, during the course of its legal journey, by a Superior Court or Authority should not be equated with accrual of any fresh cause of action.”
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petitions and held that these petitions were not maintainable before the Delhi High Court for want of jurisdiction.
Cause Title: The General Manager Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Rohit Malhotra and connected matters (Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:7035)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Jayant K. Mehta, Advocates Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Dinesh Sharma, Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Kanika Agnihotri, Akshay Mann, Anand Shankar Jha, Sachin Mintri, Harsh Kaushik, Arpit Srivastava, Sachin A., G. Arudhra Rao, Dayaar Singla, Rohan A. Naik, Atharva Kotwal, Shiv B. Chetry, Ratneswar Das, Barnali Deka Das, Sanjay K. Chadha, Tauseef Ahmad, Anand Shankar Jha, Sachin Mintri and Meenakshi S. Devgan.
Respondents: Advocates Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Saloni Mahajan, Prateek Goyal, Rishabh Kumar, R.K. Joshi, Rajinder Gulati and Rajiv Bhasin.