LexCICILY KALLARACKAL versus VEHICLE FACTORY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 95 CICILY KALLARACKAL vs. VEHICLE FACTORY (S.L.P (C) Nos. 24228-24229 of 2012) AUGUST 6, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Limitation - Special Leave Petition (SLP) - Delay in filing - Condonation of the delay - Held: On facts there was inordinate unexplained delay in filing the SLP - Condonation C of such delay would amount to substituting the period of limitation prescribed by the legislature for filing SLP - Petition dismissed on the ground of delay - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. D Anshula/ Aggarwal v. NO/DA (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) - relied on. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Challenge to the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Maintainability of - Held: Orders E of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of High Court, because a statutory appeal in terms of s. 27A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act lies to Supreme Court - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 27 A (1)(c). F Mohammad Swalleh and Ors. v. /I/rd All. District Judge, Meerutand Anr. AIR 1988 SC 94: 1988 (1) SCR 840 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1988 (1) SCR 840 (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) Referred to Relied on 95 Para 2 Para 4 G H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave B Petition (C) No. 24228-24229 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 16.09.2008 and 17.12.2009 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2518 of 2007 and RP No. 380 of 2009. Tulika Prakash, M. Khairati, K. Rajeev for the Appellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER C 1. These special leave petitions have been filed against the impugned judgments and orders dated 16.9.2008 in Writ Appeal No. 2518 of 2007 and 17.12.2009 in Review Petition No. 380 of 2009. In order to decide the controversy it is not necessary to make the reference to the factual controversy D involved herein. The basic issue has been raised in the petitions that the Kerala High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called E 'the Commission'). The said order could be challenged only before this Court in view of the provisions of National Consumer Protection Act, 1986, thus, the order passed by the High Court impugned herein is a nullity for want of jurisdiction. F 2. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter against the order of the Commission. However, while dealing with a similar issue this Court in Mohammad Swalleh & Ors. v. II/rd All. District G Judge, Meerut & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 94, observed: '7. It was contended before the High Court that no appeal lay from the decision of the Prescribed Authority to the District Judge. The High Court accepted this contention. (sic no appeal lay) ... On that ground the High Court H declined to interfere with the order of the learned District CICILY KALLARACKAL v. VEHICLE FACTORY 97 Judge. It is true that there has been some technical breach A because if there is no appeal maintainable before the learned District Judge, in the appeal before the learned District Judge, the same could not be set aside. But the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court had come to the B conclusion that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and improper. The High Court itself could have set it aside. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case justice has been done though, as mentioned hereinbefore, technically the appellant had a point that c the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper. If we reiterate the order of the High Court as it is setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution then no exception can be taken. As mentioned hereinbefore, 0 justice has been done and as the improper order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside, no objection can be taken." (Emphasis added) ln~iew of the above, it is not always necessary to set aside an order if found to have been passed by an authority/court E having no jurisdiction. Despite this, we cannot help but to state in absolute terms th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.