An intra-Court appeal against an order under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed aga inst the order passed by learned Single Judge in CMPMO No.515 of 2024, titled Surinder Singh v. Dwarpal & others, whereby the petition filed under H Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed and the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Commission was subject matter of consideration. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the State Commission

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

against the order of the District Consumer Commission, and, therefore, the Constitutional Court ordinarily should not exercise its supervisory powers in respect of the orders passed by the Courts or Trib.unals and declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

2. Upon filing of the present appeal, the Registry raised an objection that the same is not maintainable. Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that his valuable rights are being taken away and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while deciding the application filed by the appellant for impleading the Administrator’s name Umesh Kumar, and for deletion of the appellant’s name, had only partly allowed the application. As a result, the appellant H remains aggrieved by the said order, which, according to him, has gravely affected his rights.

3. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another, (1981) 4 SCC 8, to contend that the impugned order causes grave injustice as the appellant is no longer the President of the society in question, which has since been wound up, and that an Administrator has been appointed to manage the affairs of the Deoli Agriculture Cooperative Society.

4. In the present case, we have noticed that apparently there was a complaint, which was allowed on 19.10.2021, in which a sum of Rs.9,65,424/- along with interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount, if already not paid, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- towards litigation costs had been awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una. The appeal filed by the Society through the present appellant being the President before the State Commission was dismissed on account of non-deposit of 50% of the Award amount as per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection H Act. The complainant then filed execution proceedings, in which order was passed whereby the petitioner apparently sought to wriggle out of the said execution proceedings by filing the said application.

5. The District Forum passed the order which was challenged not by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , but by filing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the settled principle of law, an intra-Court appeal against an order passed under Article 2.27 is not maintainable.

6. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji versus State of Gujarat and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 1, wherein the issue in question was whether an appeal would be maintainable against an order passed by a Civil Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . The Apex Court held that it is the obligation of the Division Bench to discern and decide whether the order passed by the learned Single judge was in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution or both and H result