NCDRC Orders Can't Be Challenged Under Article 226 In Private Consumer Disputes, Article 227 Proper Remedy: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has clarified that orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) cannot be routinely challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when the dispute is purely between private parties, holding that the proper remedy in such cases lies under Article 227.

Justice Om Narayan Rai ruled that although NCDRC orders are amenable to High Court scrutiny, the nature of jurisdiction depends on the parties involved and the character of the dispute. Where no State authority or public law element is present, the Court said, Article 226 cannot be invoked merely because the order emanates from a statutory tribunal.

The petitioners had approached the High Court challenging an NCDRC order dismissing their revision against a decision of the State Consumer Commission. At the threshold, the respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition under Article 226, pointing out that all the contesting parties were private individuals. In response, the petitioners argued that since the impugned order was passed by the NCDRC, the writ petition should still be maintainable and even sought to add the Commission as a party respondent.

Rejecting this approach, the Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is essentially a public law remedy. Relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Bench reiterated that “all the respondents in a writ petition cannot be private parties” and that the main respondent must ordinarily be the State or an authority discharging a public or statutory duty. Since the present lis arose out of consumer proceedings strictly between private parties, the foundational requirement for invoking Article 226 was absent.

The Court further held that merely impleading the NCDRC would not cure the defect. Referring to M.S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society, it observed that a tribunal is not expected to defend its own order and therefore cannot be treated as a necessary or “main” respondent to sustain a writ petition. As such, adding the Commission would be a cosmetic exercise incapable of conferring maintainability.

At the same time, the Bench made it clear that NCDRC orders are not immune from judicial review. Citing Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain, the Court noted that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is the appropriate and efficacious remedy against such orders where no statutory appeal lies. Since the petitioners' grievance essentially concerned alleged jurisdictional or legal errors by the NCDRC, the matter squarely fell within Article 227.

Accordingly, holding that the petition was not entertainable under Article 226, Justice Rai directed that the case be converted into an application under Article 227 and placed before the appropriate bench in accordance with roster allocation.

Case: Dr. Tripti Das & Anr. v. Dr. Phani Bhusan Mandal & Ors.

Case No.: WPA 2580 of 2025

Click here to read order