A writ petition challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission does not lie before a Division Bench under Rule 55 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, as the Commission is not a tribunal constituted under Articles 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India.

Order

This Court, while earlier abiding by the dictum in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited , (2023) 11 SCC 594, had arrived at the considered opinion that the Tribunal constitued under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India would exercise jurisdiction akin to that of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and writ petition against order of such tribunal would lie before Division Bench of High Court. However, upon further reflection during the dictation of the separate order, it has been realized that the present Tribunal is neither constituted under Article 323A nor under Article 323B, consequently, in accordance with Rule 55 of the High Court Rules, the purview of such jurisdiction shall appropriately lie before the Single Bench.

Accordingly, a fresh order is being drawn as follows:

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, staying the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

2. While hearing the present matter, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Sh. Veer Aditya Singh Rathore, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court. He submitted that since the case at hand is essentially a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as per Rule 55 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1952), such a petition would lie before the learned Single Judge and not before the Division Bench. He further contended that under Rule 55(xi)(d) of the Rules of 1952, it is only in the cases arising out of decisions of Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India that a writ petition would lie before the Division Bench. According to him, although the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, falls within the definition of a “Tribunal,” it does not fall within the ambit of Articles 323A or 323B of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition would lie before the learned Single Judge only.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Jog Singh Bhati, opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 3. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited , (2023) 11 SCC 594, decided on 13.05.2022, and asserted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, falls within the definition of a “Tribunal.” Consequently, a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commission would lie before the Division Bench of the High Court. He therefore submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents deserves to be rejected, and the matter ought to be heard on merits, by the Division Bench only.

4. Heard arguments advanced by both sides on the issue of preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition before the Division Bench or before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

5. Before delving into the objections so raised by learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to refer to Rule 55 of the Rules of 1952, which delineates the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge as well as the matters that are required to be listed before the Division Bench. Rule 55 of the Rules of 1952, is reproduced as under:

“55. Jurisdiction of a single Judge:- Except as provided by these Rules or other law, the following cases shall or