Delhi High Court: In an appeal to challenge the judgment dated 20-01-2025, whereby the appellants petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed by the Single Judge, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela, J.*, stated that that a bare perusal of the provisions would reveal that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against a judgment passed by the Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction or against an order made in exercise of or against an order made by the Court which was subject to superintendence of this Court. Thus, the Court stated that the letters patent appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, the appellant’s petition was dismissed, which was preferred against orders dated 20-12-2023 and 30-10-2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’). The delay in filing the appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was not condoned and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed on that count.
The Single Judge while dismissing the petition observed that no interference in the orders passed in any Tribunal/Authority under Article 226/227 of the Constitution would be permissible unless the order appeared to be without jurisdiction, or it suffered from any perversity.
The first and foremost question before this Court was to whether instant appeal instituted under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court after referring to the Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal stated that a bare perusal of the provisions would reveal that Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against a judgment passed by the Single Judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction or against an order made in exercise of or against an order made by the Court which was subject to superintendence of this Court. The Court stated that the jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was primarily in the nature of superintendence and accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal would not lie in the instant matter.
The Court noted that the petitioner had placed reliance on Advanioerlikon Ltd., v. Machindra Govind Makasare, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 391 and stated that this judgment did not help the petitioner’s cause for two reasons. Firstly, any order passed by the National Commission was appealable under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before Supreme Court and as such on the availability of the said statutory appellate remedy, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution might not be entertained.
Secondly, the Court stated that so far, the aforesaid judgment was concerned, the said judgment was rendered in the matter emanating from the orders passed by the Industrial Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and under the scheme of the said Act, the remedy of appeal/revision etc. was not provided. Therefore, in such a matter, even if a petition was styled as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the same could be considered and decided by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Court stated that the letters patent appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the present petition.
[Northern Railways v. Harleen Kaur, LPA 136 of 2025, decided on 24-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Anushkaa Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sahib Gurdeep Singh, Siddhant Rai Sethi and Kustubh Singh, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
