Delhi High Court says it is not always the appropriate forum to challenge NCDRC decisions

The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the mere location of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Delhi does not imply that a challenge to NCDRC decisions always lies in Delhi [The General Manager Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Rohit Malhotra]..The jurisdiction to entertain challenges to NCDRC decisions is vested with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, Justice Manoj Jain explained while relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter."The fact remains that in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), it has been very categorically held that mere situs would not confer jurisdiction to Delhi High Court and, therefore, the concerned party was directed to approach the jurisdictional High Court," the judge observed. This also means that sometimes, the Delhi High Court may not be the appropriate forum to challenge an NCDRC decision, as the cause of action may have arisen outside Delhi. The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi had observed that limiting the remedy of judicial review only to Delhi would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution of India, which enables judicial review across the country and not in one concentrated location."By allowing petitions to be filed only in Delhi High Court merely on the basis of situs, may also jeopardize the right of access to justice, particularly when no cause of action had even arisen in Delhi," the High Court held. .Justice Jain passed the judgment while dismissing a batch of petitions in which a common question arose, namely - whether the Delhi High Court should entertain challenges to NCDRC rulings passed on appeals against decisions of State consumer fora outside Delhi. Justice Jain answered this question in the negative. .It may be recounted that the Supreme Court has already clarified in an earlier decision that appeals challenging NCDRC decisions are maintainable before the High Court.The "concerned High Court" having supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may be approached in such appeals, the Supreme Court held in Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.In this context, another question arose as to which High Court should be approached.Advocate Kanika Agnihotri, appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction in such matters since it has superintendence over the NCDRC (being in Delhi). The Siddhartha S Mookerjee case is not applicable to the present petitions, the counsel added.Senior Advocate Jayant K Mehta, also appearing for certain petitioners, contended that there was a difference between jurisdiction under Article 226 (High Court's writ jurisdiction) and Article 227 of the Constitution. In Article 227, the aspect of "situs" or location assumes significance and cannot be ignored he argued.Advocate Harsh Kaushik submitted that even if the cause of action arose outside Delhi (in consumer cases that have reached NCDRC), the jurisdiction would vest not only with other High Courts in States where the cause of action arose but also with the Delhi High Court since the NCDRC is located in Delhi. Advocate Avadh Bihari Kaushik, who represented a respondent, submitted that the mere fact that the NCDRC is located in Delhi would not confer it any jurisdiction..The Court eventually dismissed the petitions as not maintainable and held that the petitioners were at liberty to challenge the NCDRC orders before the respective jurisdictional High Courts in States where the cause of action arose. "In Ibrat Faizan (supra), which related to a matter pertaining to NCDRC only, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the aggrieved party would be required to approach the "concerned High Court" having jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and such phrases “concerned High Court” and “Jurisdictional High Court” would not ipso facto mean “Delhi High Court”, more particularly, in view of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (Supra)," the High Court reasoned. .The counsel representing various petitioners included Senior Advocate Jayant K Mehta with advocates Anand Shankar Jha and Sachin Mintri, advocates Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Dinesh Sharma, Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate Akshay Mann, Harsh Kaushik, Arpit Srivastava, Sachin A, G Arudhra Rao Dayaar Singla, Rohan A Naik, Atharva Kotwal, Shiv B Chetry, Ratneswar Das, Barnali Deka Das, Sanjay K Chadha, Tauseef Ahmad, Anand Shankar Jha, Sachin Mintri and Meenakshi S Devgan.The counsel representing various respondents included advocates Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Saloni Mahajan, Prateek Goyal, Rishabh Kumar, RK Joshi, Rajinder Gulati and Rajiv Bhasin..[Read Judgment]