Page 1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P.(C) No.24228-24229 of 2012 (CC Nos. 12891-12892 of 2012)

Cicily Kallarackal                                …Petitioner

Versus

Vehicle Factory                             …Respondent           

O R D E R  

1. These special leave petitions have been filed against the impugned  

judgments and orders dated 16.9.2008 in Writ Appeal No. 2518 of 2007  

and 17.12.2009 in Review Petition No. 380 of 2009. In order to decide  

the controversy it is not necessary to make the reference to the factual  

controversy involved herein.  

The basic issue has been raised in the petitions that the Kerala High  

Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the  

judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal  

Commission (hereinafter called ‘the Commission’). The said order could  

be challenged only before this Court in view of the provisions of National

Page 2

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, thus, the order passed by the High Court  

impugned herein is a nullity for want of jurisdiction.

2. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the learned counsel  

for the petitioner is right that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal  

with the matter against the order of  the Commission. However, while  

dealing with a similar issue this Court in Mohammad Swalleh & Ors. v.  

IIIrd All. District Judge, Meerut & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 94,  observed:   

“7.  It  was contended before  the High Court  that no  appeal  lay  from  the  decision  of  the  Prescribed   Authority  to  the  District  Judge.  The  High  Court   accepted this contention. (sic no appeal lay)… On that   ground the High Court  declined to interfere with the   order of the learned District Judge. It is true that there   has been some technical breach because if there is no   appeal maintainable before the learned District Judge,   in  the  appeal  before  the  learned  District  Judge,  the   same could not be set aside. But the High Court was   exercising  its  jurisdiction  under  Art.  226  of  the   Constitution.  The  High  Court  had  come  to  the   conclusion that the order of the Prescribed Authority   was invalid and improper. The High Court itself could   have  set  it  aside.  Therefore  in  the  facts  and   circumstances of the case justice has been done though,   as  mentioned  hereinbefore,  technically  the  appellant   had a point that the order of the District Judge was   illegal and improper. If we reiterate the order of the   High  Court  as  it  is  setting  aside  the  order  of  the   Prescribed  Authority  in  exercise  of  the  jurisdiction   under Art.  226 of  the Constitution then no exception   can be taken.  As mentioned hereinbefore,  justice has   been done and as the improper order of the Prescribed   Authority  has  been  set  aside,  no  objection  can  be   taken.” (Emphasis added)

2

Page 3

In view of the above,  it is not always necessary to set aside an  

order  if  found  to  have  been  passed  by  an  authority/court  having  no  

jurisdiction.  

Despite this, 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. Even in the  

present  case,  the  High  Court  has  not  exercised  its  jurisdiction  in  

accordance with law. The case is one of improper exercise of jurisdiction.  

It is not expected of us to deal with this issue at any greater length as we  

are dismissing this petition on other grounds.  

3. So  far  as  these  petitions  are  concerned,  there  is  an  inordinate  

unexplained delay of 1314 days in filing the petition against the order  

dated  16.9.2008 and of  851  days  against  the  order  dated  17.12.2009.  

Cause shown for not approaching this Court within limitation is stated  

that  petitioner  was  not  physically  fit  and for  some days remained  in  

3

Page 4

hospital. The cause shown is not sufficient as it was not necessary for the  

petitioner to come here personally.   

4. This Court in Anshulal Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)  

has explained the scope of condonation of delay in  a matter where the  

special  courts/tribunals  have  been  constituted  in  order  to  provide  

expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection  

Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing  

with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the court must  

keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute  

(s).  

5. In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any  

sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by  

this Court in place of the period prescribed by the legislature for filing  

the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to  

condone the delay.  

6. Hence,  in  the  facts  and  circumstance  of  the  case  as  explained  

hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same  

are dismissed on the ground of delay.  

4

Page 5

7. While declining to interfere in the present Special Leave Petition  

preferred against the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its  

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,  

we hereby make it clear that the order of the Commission are incapable  

of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a  

statutory  appeal  in  terms  of  Section  27  A(1)(c)  lies  to  this  Court.  

Therefore, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction of caution that it  

will not be proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain  

writ petitions against such orders of the Commission.  

A copy of this order may be sent to the Registrar General of all the  

High Courts,  for bringing the same to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief  

Justices and Hon'ble Judges of the respective High Courts.  

    ………..……………………….J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

  ……….………………………..J.  (SWATANTER KUMAR)

New Delhi,  August 6, 2012

5