Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics  ||  Supreme Court: Stay Orders of High Court on Trials Not to Get Vacated Automatically  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Apply TDS to Business Undertakings Where Assessee Not Paying Income  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t File HC Petition For Same Detention Order Even on Raising New Grounds  ||  Del HC: No Restraint in Grant of Bail Under S. 37 of NDPS Act For Undue Delay in Completion of Trial  ||  Gau. HC: Conviction Under Section 489B of Indian Penal Code Set Aside For Lack of Mens Rea  ||  Mad. HC: Jail is The Rule And Bail an Exception Under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act  ||  Mad. HC: Jail is The Rule And Bail an Exception Under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act    

Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited - (Supreme Court) (13 May 2022)

Writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution before High Court is maintainable against the National Commission's Appellate Order

MANU/SC/0642/2022

Consumer

The original Respondent before the High Court has preferred the present appeal against impugned interim order passed by the High Court, by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has stayed order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (National Commission), while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National Commission, in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is the moot question for consideration before this Court.

The High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the Act, 2019. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised.

The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., which has been consistently followed by this Court. Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It cannot be said that, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : JURISDICTION   WRIT PETITION   MAINTAINABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved