Constitution of India:
Art. 136 – Special Leave to appeal – Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-NCDRC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s.58(1)(a)(iii) – Petition seeking special leave to appeal u/Art. 136 – Entertainability of, when remedies available by way of writ petition u/Arts. 226 and
227 before the High Court – Held: Remedy of appeal to this Court is available only with respect to the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by s. 21(a)(i) of the 1986 Act and s. 58(1)(a)(i) or s. 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act – Both the Acts provide for the remedy of appeal to this Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction – Thus, the petition should not be adjudicate on merits – Petitioner to avail remedy either u/Art.226 or u/Art. 227 before the High Court – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ss. 17, 19 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Art. 136 – Special leave to appeal under – Scope and grant of – Discussed.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, respectively would indicate that the remedy of appeal to this Court is available only with respect to the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionNCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i) of the Act 1986 and 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act 2019. In other words, both the Acts provide for the remedy of appeal to this Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. [Para 17][1162-D-F]
1.2 In the instant case, the appeal before the NCDRC was against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act 1986. Such appeal to the NCDRC was maintainable, as provided under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act 1986. As per Section 23 of the Act 1986, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i), may prefer an appeal against such order to this Court. Therefore, an appeal against the order passed by the NCDRC to this Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(i) of the Act 1986. No further appeal to this Court is provided against the order passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act 1986. There is no provision for filing any further appeal against the order passed on the appeal filed against the order of the SCDRC. In such circumstances, the petitioner has come before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 18][1162-F-H; 1163-A]
1.3 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article
136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever, they be are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers. [Para 24][1165-F-H]
1.4 In view of the aforesaid, this petition should not be adjudicated on merits. The petitioner must be asked 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. [Para 38][1172-G-H]
Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited 2022 INSC 573 – relied on.
Pritam Singh v. State 1950 SCC 189 : 1950 SCR 453; Murtaza and Sons and Another v. Nazir Mohd. Khan and Others (1970) 3 SCC 876; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal (1955)
1 SCR 941 : AIR 1955 SC 65; Ujagar Singh and
Another v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 530; S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees’ Union v. S.G. Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Another (1986) 2 SCC 624 : [1986] 2 SCR 126;
Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and Others, 1993 Supp
(3) SCC 389 : [1993] 2 SCR 938; The State of Bombay v. M/s Ratilal Vadilal and Bros. (1961) 2 SCR 367; Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma AIR 1965 SC 1595 : [1965] SCR 366; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.