Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19684
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, S.MANU, JJ
DR. VALSAMMA CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
LEELAMMA JOSEPH – Respondent
WP(C) 18689/2023
AJIT JOY, ANEESH JAMES, SAYUJYA, SHYAM PADMAN, A.AHZAR, ALEX M SCARIA, JOHNSON GOMEZ, C.M.ANDREWS, BOBY M.SEKHAR, LAYA MARY JOSEPH, HARISH ABRAHAM, NICHU WILLINGTON, ASHWATHI SHYAM, S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA), SANJAY JOHNSON, JOHN GOMEZ, ABIN JACOB MATHEW, ARUN JOHNY, DEEBU R., ARAVIND PRAKASH, KRISHNADEV K., SARITHA THOMAS, PAVAN ROSE JOHNSON, ALEN J. CHERUVIL, SAHL ABDUL KADER
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to tribunals within its territorial limits, as established by precedent.
Headnote:
[Jurisdiction] - [Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227] - [Article 227] - [The court ruled that it lacks supervisory jurisdiction over the NCDRC, as it is situated outside its territorial limits. The decision emphasized the distinction between Articles 226 and 227, asserting that jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to tribunals within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, as established in prior case law.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to challenge the NCDRC's decision regarding medical negligence compensation, but the NCDRC's jurisdiction was questioned based on its location outside the High Court's territorial limits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it could not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 over the NCDRC, as it is located in New Delhi, outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, aligning with established legal precedents.
Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over the NCDRC located outside its territorial limits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Article 227's jurisdiction is limited to tribunals within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, as established in L. Chandrakumar and subsequent cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
S.MANU, J.
Brief facts Appellant in First Appeal No.383/2013 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at New Delhi has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Her appeal was rejected by the NCDRC. The appeal was directed against judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.10/2005. The State Commission, in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, alleging medical negligence, found that the 1st respondent is eligible for compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/- for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner herein and cost of the treatment undergone by the 1st respondent. As the NCDRC refused to interfere with the judgment of the State Commission, the petitioner is seeking interference by this court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under .
2.Preliminary objection The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent raised an objection that a writ petition under Article 227 will not lie before this court against the order passed by the NCDRC at New Delhi. He contended that the jurisdiction vested with the High Court under has to be exercised within the territorial limits of the High Court and a court or tribunal situated outside the territorial limits is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction vested with the High Court. He argued that the NCDRC, as a tribunal functioning at New Delhi, is not amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. He hence submitted that the writ petition is to be dismissed as not maintainable. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ajit Joy submitted that the matter arose from a judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission situated within the territorial limits of this Court and the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. He therefore submitted that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under this Court is the concerned court and consequently the writ petition is perfectly maintainable.
Since counsel on both sides relied on various judgments of the Apex Court and also of a recent judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and made elaborate submissions on the issue of maintainability, we find it essential to address the said issue first.
3.Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1 st respondent in detail Sri.Syam Padman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent argued that a bench of seven Judges of the Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India reported in [(1997) 3 SCC 261] considered the scope of jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution over tribunals. Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 are part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution and therefore this jurisdiction cannot be ousted. All decisions of the tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is situated. He stressed that declaration of law by the constitution bench is emphatic that the scrutiny by the High Court under is permitted only if the concerned tribunal falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court. He pointed out a judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajeev Chaturvedi v. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority & another [2024 SCC Online Raj 365]. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considered an appeal arising from the judgment of a Single Judge by which orders passed by the NCDRC were quashed.
Appellant contended that the learned Single Judge wrongly entertained the writ petition under Article 227 . The argument was that the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition were passed by the NCDRC situated at New Delhi over which the Rajasthan High Court does not have superintendence under of the Consti
