Rajasthan High Court
Rajeev Chaturvedi S/O Shri D.S. ... vs Commissioner, Jaipur Development ... on 20 February, 2024
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 157/2024
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19865/2023
Rajeev Chaturvedi S/o Shri D.S. Chaturvedi, Forest House,
Opposite Civil Line Police Station, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan-
At Present Address N-13, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore
Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Nagar,
Jaipur- 302004 (Rajasthan)
2. Deputy Commissioner Zone-12, Jaipur Development
Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle
Jawahar Lal Nehru Nagar, Jaipur-302004 (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Khanna, Adv. with
Ms. Chandrika Kumpawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv. with
Mr. Dharma Ram, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
Reserved on :: 14/02/2024
Pronounced on :: 20/02/2024
(Per Hon'ble Pankaj Bhandari, J)
1. Appellant has preferred this Special Appeal (Writ)
aggrieved by Order dated 19.01.2024, whereby writ petition filed
by the respondents was allowed and Orders dated 14.06.2022 and
13.04.2023 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi (for short the 'NCDRC') were quashed and
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
set aside and the appeal before the NCDRC was restored to its
original number subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Brief facts of present appeal are that the respondent-
JDA preferred an appeal before the NCDRC and on non-
appearance of counsel for the JDA, the appeal was dismissed in
default vide order dated 14.06.2022. Thereafter, application for
recalling of the order dated 14.06.2022 was filed on behalf of
respondent- JDA, which was dismissed by NCDRC on 13.04.2023.
Against the said order, respondent- JDA preferred SLP before the
Apex Court bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
NO(S).30332/2023. The said SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on
18.08.2023 and the Apex Court in light of the judgment of M/S
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand
Jain & Anr., granted liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the SLP
while reserving the right to approach the High Court for
appropriate relief. Respondent- JDA thereafter approached the
Rajasthan High Court by filing writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the
NCDRC. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.01.2024
allowed the writ petition and has set aside the orders passed by
the NCDRC.
3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant- Mr. Manoj
Khanna that appellant has filed writ petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the NCDRC.
Since the writ petition has been filed under the supervisory
jurisdiction, Rajasthan High Court is not having jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition. It is contended that initially a complaint
was filed before the State Commission which was allowed. It is
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
also contended that respondent- JDA has wrongly mentioned in
the writ petition that the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, as
there is no direction in the order passed by the Apex Court
permitting the respondent- JDA to file writ petition before the
Rajasthan High Court. It is contended that Article 227 of
Constitution of India gives power of superintendence to the High
Courts over all Courts and Tribunals wihtin its territorial
jurisdiction. It is further contended that since the NCDRC is
situated at New Delhi and the orders passed by the NCDRC are
under challenge by way of filing writ petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, Rajasthan High Court is not having
jurisdiction.
4. It is contended that learned Single Judge has wrongly
entertained the writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
India and has erred in interpreting the judgments passed in Ibrat
Faizan Vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited AIR 2022 SC 2363
and M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh
Chand Jain & Anr. 2023 INSC 649. It is also contended that all
decisions of Tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division
Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned
Tribunal falls. It is contended that learned Single Judge has clearly
erred in entertaining the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
on Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque & Ors. AIR 1955
SC 233 & Anr., Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences
Vs. Bikartan Das & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996, Union of
India Vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.197/2022,
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
Rajnish Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India & Ors. Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.20054/2023, Chief Executive Officer and
Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board Vs. Asiatic Steel Industries
Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.3807/2020, Kishore Samrite Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 398, Suzuki
Parasrampuria Suitings Private Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of
Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 10 SCC 707, Union
of India vs. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 223,
Mangalbhai & Ors. vs. Dr. Radhashyam S/o Parischandra Agarwal
(1992) 3 SCC 448, Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar & Ors. vs.
Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha & Ors. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 11,
and The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bherual passed by
Supreme Court decided on 15.10.2020 in Special Leave Petition
(C) Diary No.9217/2020.
6. Mr. Amit Kuri, learned counsel appearing for
respondent- JDA has opposed the appeal. It is contended that
initially the complaint was filed before Rajasthan State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, therefore, the Rajasthan High
Court was having jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under
Article 227 of Constitution of India and learned Single Judge has
rightly exercised its jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel for the JDA has placed reliance on M/S
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand
Jain & Anr. passed by Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.5263/2023, Banarsi Devi. Vs. Pink City Heart and
General Hospital & Ors. Special Leave to Appeal Nos.16987-
16988/2023, Ibrat Faizan Vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited
decided by Apex Court on 13.05.2022 in Civil Appeal
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
No.3072/2022, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran & Anr. Vs.
Chander Kumar Kak passed by Supreme Court on 13.10.2023 in
Special Leave Petition Civil Diary No.21599/2022.
8. We have considered the contentions and have perused
the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge.
9. Learned Single Judge has exercised its jurisdiction
treating the writ petition as having been filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. However, from bare perusal of the writ
petition, it is evident that writ petition was filed invoking Article
227 of Constitution of India.
Sub Clause (1) of Article 227 of Constitution of India reads as
under:-
"Every High Court shall have superintendence over all
courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction."
10. In Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra),
the Apex Court set aside the order passed by Calcutta High Court
and held as under:-
"When once a Constitution Bench of this court declared the
law that "all decisions of Tribunals created under Article
323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject
to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court
within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls", it is
impermissible to make any further construction on the said
issue. The expression "all decisions of these Tribunals"
used by the Constitution Bench will cover and take within
its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in the
matter of transfer of Original Applications from one Bench
of the Tribunal to another Bench of the Tribunal in exercise
of the power under Section 25 of the Act. In other words,
any decision of such a Tribunal, including the one passed
under Section 25 of the Act could be subjected to scrutiny
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose
jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. This unambiguous
exposition of law has to be followed scrupulously while
deciding the jurisdictional High Court for the purpose of
bringing in challenge against an order of transfer of an
Original Application from one bench of Tribunal to another
bench in the invocation of Section 25 of the Act. The law
thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be
revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter
by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to
ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction
to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution. We are of the considered view that taking
another view would undoubtedly result in indefiniteness
and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations
when a decision passed under Section 25 of the Act is to
be called in question especially in cases involving multiple
parties residing within the jurisdiction of different High
Courts albeit aggrieved by one common order passed by
the Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi.
17. The undisputed and indisputable position in this case
is that the WPCT No.78/2021 was filed to challenge the
order dated 22.10.2021 in P.T.No.215/2021 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New
Delhi, (by the Chairman of the Tribunal in exercise of the
power under Section 25 of the Act sitting at the Principal
Bench) transferring O.A.No.1619/2021 to its files. On
applying the said factual position to the legal exposition
in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) it is crystal clear that
the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
at New Delhi, which passed the order transferring
O.A.No.1619/2021 vide order in P.T.No.215/2021 falls
within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi. Needless to say that the power of judicial
review of an order transferring an Original Application
pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench
under Section 25 of the Act can be judicially reviewed
only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls.
In fact, the decision in Bhavesh Motiani's case (supra),
relied on by the respondent is also in line with the said
position as in that case also, as against the order of
transfer passed under Section 25 of the Act by the
Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at
New Delhi Writ Petition was filed by the aggrieved party
only before the High Court of Delhi. This is evident from
the very opening sentence of the said judgment, which
reads thus:
"The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by
order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the
'Tribunal'), by the O.A. No.421/2018 pending before the
Ahmedabad Bench has been transferred to the Principal
Bench of the Tribunal."
In the instant case, the High Court at Calcutta has
usurped jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, viz.,
WPCT No.78/2021, challenging the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in P.T.
No.215/2021, even after taking note of the fact that the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within its
territorial jurisdiction.
18. In the circumstances, based on our conclusion the
impugned judgment and final order in WPCT No.78/2021
passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one
passed without jurisdiction and hence, it is ab initio void.
Accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition being WPCT
No.78/2021 filed before the High Court at Calcutta is
accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the
petitioner therein/the respondent herein to assail the same
before the jurisdictional High Court, if so advised. In that
regard, we clarify the position that we have not made any
finding or observation regarding the correctness or
otherwise of the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal (in fact, by the Chairman of
the Tribunal) in P.T.No.215/2021. Needless to say that in
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
the event of filing of such a Writ Petition, it shall be
considered on its own merits, in accordance with law."
11. In M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra), Apex Court in Para No.38 observed as under:
"In the aforesaid view of the matter, we have reached the
conclusion that we should not adjudicate this petition on
merits. We must ask the petitioner here 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."
12. As per M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the petitioner should
first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution. The present writ petition before the
Single Bench has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. Article 227 of Constitution of India gives superintendence
to every High Court over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. In the
present case, the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition
have been passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi, over which
Rajasthan High Court does not have superintendence under Article
227 of Constitution of India, therefore, in our considered view, the
present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India was
not maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court. The learned
Single Judge has not referred to Article 227 of Constitution of
India in the impugned order and has treated the writ petition as if
[2024:RJ-JP:7757-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-157/2024]
it was filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ
petition having been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
seeking quashing of the orders passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi,
Rajasthan High Court was not the jurisdictional High Court, hence,
we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated
19.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be and is
accordingly, quashed and set aside.
13. Accordingly, Special Appeal (Writ) filed by the appellant
is allowed.
14. Since the Special Appeal (Writ) is allowed, the Civil Writ
filed by the respondent is dismissed on ground of lack of
jurisdiction. Respondent would be free to approach the
jurisdictional High Court, if so advised.
15. Stay application and other pending applications, if any,
stand disposed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
CHANDAN /
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
