The Rajasthan High Court held that it is not the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(‘NCDRC’), which is situated in Delhi.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Bhuwan Goyal relied on the decision of Supreme Court in M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein, as per the bench, it was held that the Petitioner should first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The present appeal came before the division bench after the appellant was aggrieved by the decision of a single bench which quashed the orders of the NCDRC, in which NCDRC dismissed the application by Respondent- Jaipur Development Authority, for recalling its earlier order in which an appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.

As per the Counsel for the Appellant, Advocate Manoj Khanna, the Appellant has filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the NCDRC. Since the Writ Petition has been filed under the supervisory jurisdiction, the Rajasthan High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain it.

He further contended that initially a complaint was filed before the State Commission which was allowed. It is also contended that respondent- JDA has wrongly mentioned in the Writ Petition that the SLP, which was filed by them after the NCDRC order, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court, as there is no direction in the order passed by the Apex Court permitting the respondent- JDA to file Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court.

It is contended that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives power of superintendence to the High Courts over all Courts and Tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. It is further contended that since the NCDRC is situated in New Delhi and the orders passed by the NCDRC are under challenge by way of filing a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Rajasthan High Court does not have jurisdiction over it.

It is also contended that all decisions of Tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.

Counsel for the Respondent, Advocate Amit Kuri, contended that initially the complaint was filed before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, therefore, the Rajasthan High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

According to the Rajasthan High Court, the single judge has exercised its jurisdiction treating the Writ Petition as having been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as per the Court, from a bare perusal of the Writ Petition, it is evident that it was filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

High Court further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay wherein, as per the Court, it was held that any decision of a tribunal (inclusive of one passed under Section 25 of the Act) will be subject to scrutiny only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls.

The Court, while noting that the Writ Petition not maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court held, “The present writ petition before the Single Bench has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives superintendence to every High Court over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.”

As per the Court, the Single Judge has not referred to Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the impugned order and has treated the Writ Petition as if it was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Finally, the division bench allowed the Special Appeal (Writ).

Cause Title: Rajeev Chaturvedi v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Aurhtority (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. Manoj Khanna, Adv. Chandrika Kumpawat

Respondent: Adv. Amit Kuri, Adv. Dharma Ram

Click here to read/download Judgment


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Pankaj BhandariJustice Bhuwan Goyal

Tanveer Kaur