Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Ex-Parte Order Of State Consumer Commission Can Be Challenged Before NCDRC: SC [Read Order]

Ashok Kini
21 Dec 2019 12:06 PM GMT
Ex-Parte Order Of State Consumer Commission Can Be Challenged Before NCDRC: SC [Read Order]
x

The Supreme Court has held that an ex-parte order passed by State Consumer Commission can be challenged before the National Commission. In this case [Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd vs. State Bank of India], the Bombay High Court, to hold that writ petition can be entertained against an Ex Parte order passed by State Consumer Commission, observed that an appeal does not lie before the...

The Supreme Court has held that an ex-parte order passed by State Consumer Commission can be challenged before the National Commission.

In this case [Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd vs. State Bank of India], the Bombay High Court, to hold that writ petition can be entertained against an Ex Parte order passed by State Consumer Commission, observed that an appeal does not lie before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Act and consequently there was no alternative remedy available.

Therefore, in appeal, the Apex Court considered the issue whether the National Commission has jurisdiction to set aside an order of the State Commission placing a party ex parte.

Referring to Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, the bench comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed:

A plain reading of Section 21(a) (ii) read with Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders passed by the State Commission. Section 21(a)(ii) does not state that appeals cannot be entertained against orders that have been passed ex parte. The plain and simple meaning of the said provision is that appeals will be entertained by the National Commission against any order passed by the State Commission. The word "orders" as used in Section 21(a)(ii) means and includes "any orders". Thus, an order of the State Commission placing a particular party ex parte can also be questioned before the National Commission.

Holding thus, the bench said that the High Court could have avoided to entertain the writ petition against the order of the State Commission, in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy to the respondent. It added:

"The presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law. However, entertaining a writ petition in such a case may be proper in certain circumstances, for instance when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, or has been passed invoking repealed provisions."

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order




Next Story