VALSAMMA CHACKO Vs. LEELAMMA JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in First Appeal No.383/2013 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at New Delhi has 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 herein, alleging medical negligence, found that the 1st respondent is eligible for compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000.00 for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner herein 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 is seeking interference by this court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

(2.) Preliminary objection The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent raised an objection that a writ petition under Article 227 will not lie before this court against the order passed by the NCDRC at New Delhi. He contended that the jurisdiction vested with the High Court under Article 227 has to be exercised within the territorial limits of the High Court and a court or tribunal situated outside the territorial limits is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction vested with the High Court. He argued that the NCDRC, as a tribunal functioning at New Delhi, is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. He hence submitted that the writ petition is to be dismissed as not maintainable. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ajit Joy submitted that the matter arose from a judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission situated within the territorial limits of this Court and the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. He therefore submitted that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 this Court is the concerned court and consequently the writ petition is perfectly maintainable. Since counsel on both sides relied on various judgments of the Apex Court and also of a recent judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and made elaborate submissions on the issue of maintainability, we find it essential to address the said issue first.

(3.) Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent in detail Sri.Syam Padman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent argued that a bench of seven Judges of the Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India reported in [(1997) 3 SCC 261] considered the scope of jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution over tribunals. Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 are part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution and therefore this jurisdiction cannot be ousted. All decisions of the tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is situated. He stressed that declaration of law by the constitution bench is emphatic that the scrutiny by the High Court under Article 227 is permitted only if the concerned tribunal falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court. He pointed out a judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajeev Chaturvedi v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority & another [2024 SCC Online Raj 365]. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considered an appeal arising from the judgment of a Single Judge by which orders passed by the NCDRC were quashed. Appellant contended that the learned Single Judge wrongly entertained the writ petition under Article 227. The argument was that the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition were passed by the NCDRC situated at New Delhi over which the Rajasthan High Court does not have superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Heavy reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [(2022) 3 SCC 133]. The Division Bench accepted the contention and held that the writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court against the orders passed by the NCDRC was not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the view of the Rajasthan High Court is eminently correct and we may also follow the same view and reject this writ petition.