Supreme Court: Orders passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can not be challenged under Article 226 of COI

In the case of Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya Evam Navjat Shishu I.C.U. vs. Manoj Upadhyaya [SLP(C) 4127/2021] the matter was heard by High Court where it dealt with the issue of whether the revisional power of state commission U/S.17(1)(b) provides any remedy to National Commission.

The High Court dismissed the petition on merits referring to the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory [(2012) 8 SCC 524] where no writ petition lies against the order of the State Commission.

When the case approached Supreme Court the court observed that the present case does not discusses maintainability of a Writ Petition against state consumer commission order.

The Supreme Court also observed that: “We cannot help but to state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal to such higher court and entertain petitions in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s