Orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum are appealable before the National Commission and cannot be questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The order dated 11th March, 2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata in CDF/Unit-1/Case No.203/2012 is under challenge in this writ petition dated 11th March, 2014.

2. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that an appeal, being FA No.959 of 2013, was preferred before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the State Commission) questioning the legality and/or validity of the order dated 11th March, 2013, but the application for condonation of delay in presentation of the appeal was rejected resulting in dismissal of the appeal itself.

3. It is noted that in this writ petition, the appellate order dated 20th February, 2014 is not under challenge.

4. In any event, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. The order dated 20th February, 2014 could have been carried by the petitioner in appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the National Commission) in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. In a decision of recent origin reported in (2012) 6 SCC 524 (Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory), the Supreme Court made the following observation:

"9. 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 orders 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."

6. Copy of the said decision was circulated amongst the Judges of all the High Courts in the country in terms of the direction contained in paragraph 10 of the report.

7. Since it is the view of the Supreme Court that an order of the National Commission is incapable of being questioned in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27-A(1)(c) lies before the Supreme Court, and that it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petitions directed against orders of the National Commission, the same analogy applies here. The order of the State Commission is also appealable before the National Commission, and following the dictum of Cicily Kallarackal (supra) it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against an order of the State Commission.

8. Mr. Gangopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 412 (State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharthi House Building Coop. Society & Ors.). Attention of the Court has been invited to paragraphs 41 and 53 thereof.

9. I am conscious that the power of judicial review that a High Court is empowered to exercise in terms of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed either by any constitutional provision, far less by any ordinary law. One may travel down memory lane to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.), where the provisions contained in Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution to the extent they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 were held to be unconstitutional on the ground that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be curtailed.

10. In the decision reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638, Director of Settlement v. M.R. Apparao, law has been laid down by the Supreme Court that its decision cannot be assailed on the ground that certain a