Court No. 551 WPA 2580 of 2025 (266306)

12.12.2025 Tripti Das & Anr.

(AD 1) Vs.

Dr. Phani Bhusan Mandal & Ors.

(S. Banerjee)

CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Dr. Kunal Saha …the authorized representative of the petitioners Mr. Shibaji Kumar Dey Mr. Dipendu Sarkar Ms. Deblina De …for the respondent no. 2 Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta Mr. Avijit Dey …for the respondent no. 3 Heard Dr. Saha appearing for the petitioners.

Dr. Saha invites the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. –Vs.- Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported at (2010) 8 SCC 329 and submits that the exceptional power of judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice and for public interest, whereas Article 226 of the Constitution of India is meant for protection of individual grievance. It is submitted that in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 49(l), (m) and (n) of the said judgment, the instant petition which has been styled as one under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, should be entertained as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

He then relies on the following judgments in order to demonstrate what is meant by a “proper party” and to assert that since in view thereof National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’, for short) is a proper party to the instant proceeding therefore this petition should be treated as one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India upon adding NCDRC as a party to this proceeding:-

i) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited –

Vs.- Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417;

ii) Sudhamayee Pattanaik & Ors. –Vs.- Bibhu Prasad Sahoo & Ors., reported in (2022) 17 SCC 286; and iii) J. N. Real Estate –Vs.- Shailendra Pradhan &

Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1015.

He further cites the following judgments to demonstrate that Hon’ble High Courts of Odisha and Madras have entertained writ petitions under Article

226 of the Constitution of India in cases where NCDRC has been impleaded as a party:

i) WP(C) No. 14583 of 2024 (M/s. Kkreation Associates, Bhubaneswar –Vs.- The Registrar, NCDRC & Anr.;

ii) Kkreation Associates & Anr. –Vs.- Registrar, NCDRC, New Delhi & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2816;

iii)WP No. 10749 of 2024 and WMP No. 11830 of

2024 (BCIL Zed Ria Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. –Vs.- The Registrar, National Con sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi &

Ors.), Order dated March 5, 2025.

He also relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of The Estate Officer HSVP Sonipat & Anr. –Vs.- Rajan Bhatia (WP(C) 4394 of 2025) to contend that in the said case the Delhi High Court had entertained a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the NCDRC without there being any Article 12 authority impleaded as a respondent.

Dr. Saha submits that in view of the proposition of law enunciated by the aforesaid judgments, NCDRC is at least a proper party and should be added as a respondent to the present petition.

Accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to make submissions in answer to the submissions made by Dr. Saha.

List this matter for further consideration on January 16, 2026 at 2 p.m.

(Om Narayan Rai, J.)