Recently, the Allahabad High Court was called upon to examine whether its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to interfere with recovery proceedings initiated on the strength of concurrent findings delivered by the District, State and National Consumer Commissions. The controversy raised an important question: when can orders of consumer fora especially those affirmed by the National Commission be subjected to writ scrutiny despite the availability of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227? Without touching the ultimate outcome at the outset, the Court embarked on a detailed evaluation of statutory remedies, constitutional limitations, and judicial precedents governing writ review.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a real-estate plotting scheme launched on land located outside municipal and planning limits under the governing statute. After bookings were accepted and layout plans approved by the competent local authority, consolidation proceedings were initiated in the concerned village under a statutory notification. This halted the development work, and plot purchasers having neither received possession nor witnessed progress, approached the consumer forum seeking refund with interest. The District Commission directed refund with interest; the State Commission affirmed the order and even enhanced relief. The National Commission, while converting the challenge into second appeal, dismissed it for want of any “substantial question of law”. Upon initiation of recovery proceedings, including attachment of bank accounts, the developer invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction seeking quashing of the consumer-fora orders and recovery steps.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant urged that the project was launched when no consolidation proceedings existed and that the subsequent notification created a supervening legal impossibility amounting to frustration under Section 56 of the Contract Act,1872. According to the Appellant, possession continued to remain with it and there was no deficiency in service; therefore, only refund without interest if at all could be claimed as per scheme terms. Reliance was placed on Satyabrata Ghosh, Alopi Prasad, Delhi Airtech Services, and Pioneer Urban, contending that courts have consistently recognised impossibility/illegality as a ground to discharge contractual obligations and to insulate parties from coercive recovery when performance becomes impossible. The Appellant further argued that the National Commission itself, in another matter, had indicated that a writ petition was maintainable in absence of any statutory remedy, thereby validating invocation of Article 226 in the present case.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the Respondent countered that the developer had failed to deliver possession or show any development despite receiving consideration and that all three consumer fora had concurrently affirmed these factual findings. The counsel was stressed that the developer had suppressed the existence of consolidation proceedings and had indulged in unfair trade practice. Further, they argued that a writ petition was not maintainable because an alternative remedy of approaching the Supreme Court under the statute existed, and writ jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism.
Observation of the Court:
The Court undertook an extensive survey of precedents including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, and Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd, The consistent thread emerging from these authorities was reiterated that “Alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of a fundamental right, or where there has been violation of natural justice, or where the order is wholly without jurisdiction or vires of statute is challenged.”
The Court also emphasised the principle that “When a right is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking Article 226.”
Referring to Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd. and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain the Court underscored that since the National Commission is a tribunal and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, a writ under Article 226 should be sparingly entertained.
Crucially, the High Court noted that all three consumer fora had concurrently found, on evidence that the developer had never been in possession of the land, that the land was already under consolidation, and that amounts were taken from consumers while concealing this fact. The District Commission had categorically held that “Petitioner was never in possession of the land as it was already under consolidation proceedings… petitioner had committed an unfair trade practice and was liable to return the amount.”
These observations were purely factual, turning on disputed questions unsuited for adjudication under Article 226. No perversity, jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or constitutional infringement was demonstrated.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court held that none of the exceptional grounds for invoking writ jurisdiction were satisfied. The findings of the consumer fora revealed no perversity or jurisdictional error. Since an adequate remedy under Article 227 existed and the case involved disputed facts, interference under Article 226 was unwarranted. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Case Title: M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 others
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 8939 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Sanjai Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondent: CSC Piyush Mani Tripathi, Adv. Sameeksha Chadha
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
