J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866, assailing the judgment dated 14th May, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the W.P.(C) 11375/2022 titled “Vemparala Srikant And Anr. vs. General Secretary, India Bulls Centrum Flat Owners Welfare Co-Operative Society, Hyderabad”, only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the underlying petition.

2. The only question in the present appeal for consideration of this Court is whether an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “NCDRC”) in a Revision Petition or an Appeal against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “SCDRC”) can be challenged before this Court or has to be challenged before the respective jurisdictional High Courts ?

3. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has relied upon the five Judges Bench judgment of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Limited vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162 to dismiss the underlying writ petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment.

5. Apart from the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Limited (supra), the issue raised in the writ petition, in our opinion, is no more res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877. In that case, the Supreme Court had examined an identical issue and held that so far as the orders passed by the NCDRC in Appellate/Revisional jurisdiction is concerned, the same can be assailed under the provisions of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, before the jurisdictional High Court. The relevant paragraphs of Universal Sompo (supra) are as under:

37. This Court in Ibrat Faizan (supra), while explaining the importance of approaching the High Court, more particularly when a remedy is available by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution (supervisory jurisdiction)

observed as under:

“12. ….Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is appropriate that aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

xxx xxx xxx

13. Now so far as the remedy which may be available under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the remedy by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may be too expensive and as observed and held by this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the said remedy can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Therefore, when the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court is provided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, may be a complainant, to approach the concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

xxx xxx xxx

14.1. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution,