Writ Petition U/Art 226 Against NCDRC's Order Maintainable Only In 'Exceptional Circumstances', Remedy U/Art 227 Preferable: Allahabad High Court
Sparsh Upadhyay
8 Dec 2025 4:12 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that while a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), such power is discretionary and must be exercised only in "exceptional circumstances".
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed a writ petition filed by M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., holding that since the NCDRC is a 'Tribunal', the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party is to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, rather than the original writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Court firmly stated that the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal against the decision of a tribunal to correct errors of fact, nor should it allow the machinery created under a statute to be bypassed.
However, the Bench clarified that the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies: namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
Case in brief
Briefly put, the petitioner, a real estate company, launched a residential plotting scheme in 2012 titled 'Sahu City Phase-2' in Lucknow. Several consumers booked plots who expected possession within a specified timeframe.
However, after initiation of the project and acceptance of bookings, consolidation proceedings in the said village was initiated pursuant to a notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
As a result, the petitioner's project came to a halt and it was unable to deliver the possession to plot allottees.
Arguing that the consolidation process was an unforeseen event akin to force majeure under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the developer claimed the project was halted due to circumstances beyond their control.
However, on the other hand, aggrieved by the non-delivery of possession, the consumers approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ordered a refund of the deposited amount with interest.
The Petitioner-developer filed an appeal against this order under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before State Commission which was dismissed in August 2024.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was converted into a a Second Appeal under Section 51(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but the same was dismissed in April 2025, observing that no "substantial question of law" was involved.
Thereafter, execution proceedings were initiated and a demand notice was issued by Tehsildar and attachment order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate thereby attaching the bank account of the petitioner pursuant to which the amount of Rs. 48,80,493 was realized.
Thus, the petitioner-developer moved the present writ plea in HC seeking quashing of the impugned orders passed by the District Commission upheld by State Commission along with setting aside the recovery proceedings. The plea also sought declaration that the continuation of such action is wholly without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory and constitutional safeguard.
Now, the issue before the HC was whether an order passed by the National Commission in its Appellate or revisional jurisdiction can be challenged under Article 226 plea and if yes, under what circumstances?
High Court's observations
At the outset, the Court referred to Supreme Court landmark judgments in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks 1998 and Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome (P) Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481 to note that the National Commission is indeed a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Article 136 and Article 227 and hence, a party can always approach the High Court having supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
However, it added that in the Supreme Court's latest Judgment in Rikhab Chand Jain vs Union of India and ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129, the practice of the HC entertaining a writ petition when there is an appropriate remedy before a different jurisdiction of the same High Court, was disapproved.
The Court observed thus:
"When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion"
"Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress... the High Court normally will not permit, by entertaining a petition under Article 226...the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed," the Court said.
The Court also added that in an appeal against the order of NCDRC to writ court in cases where there are disputed questions of fact or the grounds taken in the writ petition is not so cogent, where prima facie patent illegality or perversity findings of Tribunal are not shown on the face of the record, the High Court has the discretion to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition.
Against this backdrop, the Court noted that in the present plea raised "disputed questions of fact" and the District Commission had previously held that the developer committed an unfair trade practice by collecting money while concealing that the land was already under or subject to consolidation processes.
Thus, the HC refused to re-appreciate the evidence, stating that the findings of the District, State, and National Commissions were concurrent and could not be termed as "perverse."
"The petitioner is here before this Court and has again reiterated the same ground that has already been taken by him before the District Commission, State Commission and National Commission who have concurrently come to a finding against the petitioner. The issue of the knowledge of consolidation proceedings as to from when they were being carried out and the fact of possession of the land are purely factual in nature and based on disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by us in writ jurisdiction."
Thus, the Court come to an 'obdurate' finding that the petitioner had failed to make out a case requiring interference. The Court further noted that till date, the petitioner has not given possession of the land to the allottees.
Since the petitioner could not demonstrate a violation of fundamental rights, a breach of natural justice or a lack of jurisdiction by the lower forums, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case title - M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Srivastava vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 others
Citation :