Supreme Court Rules Writ Petition Against Orders Passed By State Consumer Commission As Unmaintainable

OVERVIEW

Supreme Court recently observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the verdicts passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not maintainable.

The case in point involved an order passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing a revision petition that upheld the verdict passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, that was challenged before the High Court.

BRIEF ACCOUNT 

The Court addressed the arguments placed by the petitioner, asking if there is any remedy available before the National Commission against the exerci4e of revisional powers by State Commission under section 17 (1)(b). 

To this, the Court answered that neither revisional jurisdiction not appellate jurisdiction could be exercised by the National Commission against the impugned orders of the State Commission.

The bench further considered the issue based on merits by rejecting the objection as to jurisdiction, and noted that the ‘window of interference’ available to the Court under Article 226 regrading matters involving orders of statutorily created tribunals are under challenger and limited.

“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 v. Vehicle Factory without even dealing with or discussing the judgement and the reason of 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.”

It was observed that in the case of Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, the order passed by National Consumer Commission was incapable of being argued upon under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court as a statutory appeal under section 27 (A)(1)(c) lies with the discretion of the Supreme Court.

“We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of Cicily.”

CONCLUSION

The Apex Court bench consisting of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari thus dismissed the petition, adhering to the objection raised by the Registry.

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON THE AFOREMENTIONED VERDICT? LET US KNOW IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!