WP(C) NO. 18689 OF 2023
DR. VALSAMMA CHACKO
Versus
LEELAMMA JOSEPH and others.
Decided by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court on 31.07.2024
Brief facts:
Appellant in First Appeal No.383/2013 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at New Delhi preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Her appeal was rejected by the NCDRC. The appeal was directed against judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.10/2005. The State Commission, in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent, alleging medical negligence, found that the 1st respondent was eligible for compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/- for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and cost of the treatment undergone by the 1st respondent. As the NCDRC refused to interfere with the judgment of the State Commission, the petitioner sought interference by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [(2022) 3 SCC 133]:-
In this case, the Apex Court examined the legality of a judgment passed by the High Court at Calcutta by which the High Court set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi, transferring an original application which was pending before the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench (New Delhi). The Calcutta High Court interfered with the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Administrative Tribunal. The Apex Court examined the propriety and legality of the interference made by the Calcutta High Court. Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the Calcutta High Court enjoyed jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal situated at New Delhi, even though the proceeding was originally pending before the Kolkata Bench of the tribunal. Apex Court specifically noticed that bundle of facts constituting cause of action for filing the O.A. before the tribunal conferred jurisdiction on the Kolkata Bench of the tribunal. Apex Court held that the High Court should have confined its consideration firstly to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review. Reference was made to the law laid down in Chandrakumar’s case. Thereafter, it was held thus:-
“When once a Constitution Bench of this Court declared the law that “all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls”, it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue.”
It was further held as follows:-
“The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that taking another view would undoubtedly result in indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations when a decision passed under Section 25 of the Act is to be called in question especially in cases involving multiple parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High Courts albeit aggrieved by one common order passed by the Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi.”
Ibrat Faizan v. Om axe Buildhome Private Ltd.
[2022 SCC OnLine SC 620]In this case an order of stay passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order of the NCDRC was under challenge before the Apex Court. The specific issue considered by the Apex Court was the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by NCDRC in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act. After referring to the judgment of a Constitution bench of the Apex Court in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N.Sharma [AIR 1965 SC 1595] and L.Chandrakumar’s case (supra) the Apex Court held as follows:-
“22. Therefore, the National Commission can be said to be a ‘Tribunal’ which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them. Therefore, as observed herein above in the aforesaid decision, it satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and therefore may be regarded as a ‘Tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is appropriate that aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited v. Suresh Chand Jain & another [AIR 2023 SC 3699]
Apex Court considered a petition seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution by the party who sought to challenge the order of the NCDRC in a first appeal. The Supreme Court made extensive reference to the judgment in the case of Ibrat Faizan v. Om axe Buildhome Private Limited [2022 SCC OnLine SC 620]. Finally, the Apex Court concluded as follows:-
“38. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we have reached to the conclusion that we should not adjudicate this petition on merits. We must ask the petitioner herein to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before this Court by filing special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution,”
Concerning the factual matrix, it is to be noted that the original proceedings in this case arose before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
HELD: On an analysis of the above precedents, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay has categorically held that the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in L.Chandrakumar’s case is to the effect that the power under Article 227 can be exercised only over the courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of the respective High Courts. True, another bench of two judges of the Apex Court has made a reference to larger bench about the conclusions in Alapan Bandyopadhyay as we find in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi and others.
Nevertheless, the proposition laid down in Alapan Bandyopadhyay is still binding on us despite the reference. Nothing contrary to the said proposition is laid down either in Ibrat Faizan or Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited. Obviously, Apex Court, in the judgment in Alapan Bandyopadhyay cautions that when a Constitution Bench lays down the law it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. This was said after specifically referring to the following elucidation by the Constitution Bench in Chandrakumar – “All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.” As we have referred above, in Ibrat Faizan it has been held that NCDRC can be regarded as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 227. Hence, a close reading and comprehensive analysis of the precedents leads us to the conclusion that this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 only over those courts and tribunals situated within the territorial limits of this Court.
Hence, over the NCDRC, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Therefore, the writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed as not maintainable.
