JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This application styled as “an application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India” is directed against an order dated May 10, 2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter “NCDRC”) thereby dismissing the petitioner’s revision against an order dated December 15, 2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2. Since this application has been styled as one under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a point of maintainability thereof was taken by the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents at the very threshold. It was submitted that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained only if the same is directed against an authority answering the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, since in the present writ petition only private parties are arrayed as respondents, the same cannot be entertained as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

3. Dr. Saha appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Another,  (2024) 9 SCC 148, a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order passed by the NCDRC and as such the instant petition should be entertained as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. He next relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research & Another vs. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Others, Appeal (C) No. 15651/2020, decided on 08.01.2025 and submitted that in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the parties to approach the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He suggested that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had thus settled that an order of NCDRC should be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution only.

5. He further relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Rajeev Chaturvedi vs. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority & Another,  2024 SCC OnLine Raj 365 and submitted that in the facts of the present case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. It was submitted that the only avenue available to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the NCDRC is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

6. In response to the submissions of Dr. Saha, Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil,  (2010) 8 SCC 329 and submitted that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained only against private parties. He next relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhartha S. Mookerjee & Another vs. Madhab Chand Mitter & Another,  2024 SCC OnLine SC 4285 and submitted that in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the parties to approach the Hon’ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since only private parties were involved in the matter.

7. Mr. Das next relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited,  (2023) 11 SCC 594 and submitted that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that since the NCDRC is a Tribunal therefore the most appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by an order passed by NCDRC in appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 would be to approach the Hon’ble High Court concerned having jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of