Kerala High Court
Dr. Valsamma Chacko vs Leelamma Joseph on 11 February, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
Tuesday, the 11th day of February 2025 / 22nd Magha, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18689 OF 2023 (I)
PETITIONER:
DR. VALSAMMA CHACKO, PROFESSOR OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY (RETD),
SENIOR CONSULTANT, OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, KERALA INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 029.
RESPONDENTS:
1. LEELAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 66 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. JOSEPH. J., SAROYA, LINK
VALLEY, KUSUMAGIRI P O, EDACHIRA ROAD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682
030.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, GG HOSPITAL G.G. HOSPITAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 011.
3. *(DR. SASIKUMAR SENIOR UROLOGIST, GG HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) *
CORRECTED AS"DR. SASIKUMAR, SENIOR UROLOGIST, GG HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR COUNSULTANT
UROLOGIST, S.P FORT HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT T.C. 14/420-3,
SASIGIRI, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 011"
(CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/10/2023 IN IA 1/23 IN WP(C)).
4. *(DR. VIKRAMAN K.R. UROLOGIST, KIMS HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
*CORRECTED AS"DR.VIKRAMAN.K.R, UROLOGIST, KIMS HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695029, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR CONSULTANT
UROLOGIST, ANANTHAPURI HOSPITAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TRIVANDRUM,
RESIDING AT DEEPAM, NO 28, NAVARANGAM LANE, MEDICAL COLLGE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 011" (CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/10/2023 IN IA
1/23 IN WP(C)).
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the operation of the Order dated 27.03.2023 of the Learned
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal
383 of 2013 and the order dated 22.02.2013 of the Learned State Consumer
Redressal Commission Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram in Complaint No. 10/2005
till the disposal of the present petition.
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the
petition and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's
Judgment dated 31.07.2024 and order dated 21.01.2025 and upon hearing the
arguments of M/S.AJIT JOY, ANEESH JAMES & SAYUJYA, Advocates for the
petitioner, M/S.SHYAM PADMAN, C.M.ANDREWS, BOBY M.SEKHAR, LAYA MARY
JOSEPH, HARISH ABRAHAM, NICHU WILLINGTON & ASHWATHI SHYAM, Advocates for
R1, SRI.A.AHZAR, Advocate for R2, M/S.SARITHA THOMAS, PAVAN ROSE JOHNSON,
ALEN J. CHERUVIL & SAHL ABDUL KADER, Advocates for R3 and of M/S. JOHNSON
GOMEZ, S.BIJU, SANJAY JOHNSON, JOHN GOMEZ, ABIN JACOB MATHEW, ARUN JOHNY,
DEEBU R., ARAVIND PRAKASH & KRISHNADEV K., Advocates for R4, the court
passed the following:
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.18689 of 2023, 24668 of 2024,
38882 of 2024, 40065 of 2024,
40654 of 2024, 40696 of 2024,
43880 of 2024
and
2295 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
ORDER
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
In W.P.(C)No.18689 of 2023, the learned Single
Judge, who was hearing the matter, passed the following
order on 24.05.2024;
"Registry to check whether the matter has to be
placed before a Division Bench and if so, place the
matter before the Division Bench.
Post on 31.05.2024, if necessary, after getting
orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice."
2. Thereafter, the Registry prepared a note and
placed the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The
Registry's note reads as follows:
"In this connection kind attention is invited to the
verdict of the Honourable Apex Court in Ibrat Faizan
W.P.(C) Nos.18689 of 2023 and Connected cases
Vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal
No.3072/2022) (put up at Flag C). In this case,
though the Honourable Apex Court held the view that
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India can be preferred before High Courts against
orders passed by the National Consumer Redreesal
Commission in appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of
the Consumer Protection Act - 2019, did not give
any stipulation with respect to the composition of the
Bench.
In the above said circumstances, it may kindly
be indicated whether
A) Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution filed before the High Court of Kerala
against orders passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission may be placed
before a Division Bench. and
B) Subject to the orders on 'A', the Division Bench
for hearing such matters may be specified."
3. Thereafter, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
approved it and placed it before a Division Bench headed by
Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque, one among us. The Registry, in
fact, wrongly referred to the ratio in Ibrat Faizan Vs.
Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.; [2022 SCC OnLine SC 620].
Ibrat Faizan's case did not lay down any law that the
matter would lie before a Division Bench. Ibrat Faizan's
W.P.(C) Nos.18689 of 2023 and Connected cases
case only referred to Chandra Kumar v. Union of India;
[(1997) 3 SCC 261] to hold that the High Court is entitled to
invoke its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India to exercise the power of judicial review.
In Chandra Kumar's case, noting the provisions of the
Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, it was held that it is
appropriate for such matters decided by the Administrative
Tribunal to be dealt with by a Division Bench. The National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission does not come
under the ambit of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. In
Chandra Kumar's case, the Apex Court, after referring to
Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, held that such
challenges shall be dealt with before a Division Bench of the
High Court. In regard to the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, this was created under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 and not relatable to Article 323A or
323B of the Constitution.
4. In the normal course, a challenge to the
orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
W.P.(C) Nos.18689 of 2023 and Connected cases
Commission would lie only before a learned Single Judge,
unless the Hon'ble the Chief Justice constitutes a roster of
the Division Bench to entertain such a challenge. In this
matter, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has not constituted a
roster for the Division Bench to deal with it. Therefore, the
challenge will lie only before the learned Single Judge. The
matter is remitted back for consideration by the learned
Single Judge, unless the Hon'ble the Chief Justice constitutes
a roster to the contrary to be dealt with by a Division Bench.
Interim order is extended by two months.
Registry shall place these matters before the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for further consideration.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
rkj
11-02-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
