Writ Petition Challenging NCDRC Order Should Not Be Normally Entertained: Allahabad High Court

The High Court noted that intervention under Article 226 is warranted only where exceptional circumstances arise.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging concurrent findings of the District Commission, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing refund of booking amounts with interest to consumers of a residential plotting project. The petitioner sought to quash the consumer orders and related recovery proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar, upon hearing the matter, observed: “When a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available to the petitioner, writ petition under Article 226 should not be normally entertained but the remedy under Article 226 would be available under exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is cautiously to be used when grave injustice has been caused due to violation of principles of natural justice and/or when there is a clear violation of fundamental rights or patent illegality in the impugned order.”

Background

The petitioner launched a residential housing scheme and collected booking amounts. However, the land subsequently came under consolidation proceedings, as a result of which development could not proceed, and possession could not be handed over to the allottees.

Consumers approached the District Commission, alleging a deficiency in service, and sought a refund. The complaint was allowed, and the findings were upheld by the State Commission and thereafter by the NCDRC.

Challenging the execution of those orders, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Court’s Observation

The Allahabad High Court examined the rule of alternate remedy and held that Article 226 cannot be used as a substitute for the appropriate supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. It emphasised that constitutional courts avoid exercising writ jurisdiction where statutory and constitutional appellate or supervisory remedies exist.

The Bench noted that the petitioner sought re-examination of disputed facts regarding possession and knowledge of consolidation proceedings at the time of allotment. It held that such factual disputes cannot be revisited in writ proceedings.

The Court further observed that no foundational pleading of violation of natural justice or patent illegality was established in the findings of the consumer fora. It confirmed that the NCDRC acted within its jurisdiction and its order could not be challenged collaterally through a writ.

The Bench clarified that mere dissatisfaction with concurrent findings is not an exceptional circumstance permitting bypass of Article 227. It reaffirmed that Article 226 intervention is limited to rare and compelling cases where fundamental rights or essential judicial safeguards are breached.

Since none of the recognised exceptions were satisfied, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The High Court, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the remedy under Article 227 remained available and the present challenge did not fall within any exceptional ground warranting intervention under Article 226. All pending applications were also disposed of.

Cause Title: M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory v. State of UP (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:LKO:79436-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Sanjai Srivastava

Respondents: Advocates Piyush Mani Tripathi, Sameeksha Chadha

Click here to read/download Judgment