MANOJ JAIN, J

1. A common question has arisen in all the abovesaid petitions and with the concurrence of all the concerned counsel, when these matters were heard on 01.08.2024, CM(M) 2933/2024 was agreed to be taken as a lead matter though the other counsel were also permitted to address arguments.

2. The question is whether an order passed by Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "NCDRC"), while considering any appeal or revision impugning order passed by State Commission, other than the State Commission of Delhi, can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court or should any such petitioner go to the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action, in the first instance, had arisen.

3. Indubitably, the issue seems squarely covered in view of recent pronouncement dated 04.03.2024 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter in Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024 and following the above pronouncement, many other similarly situated petitioners had withdrawn their respective petitions with liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional High Courts.

4. However, few such petitioners contend otherwise and according to them, this Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain such petitions and it is in the above backdrop that this Court has heard arguments in the abovesaid bunch of petitions in order to assess whether despite specific observations given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), this Court can entertain any such petition or not.

5. There is no dispute that such order passed by NCDRC, against which there is no remedy to file appeal, can be permitted to be tested by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard be made to Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. :

Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58 , may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:

Article 227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.--

[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may--

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:

10. It will be now appropriate to take note of the aforesaid judgment given in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra).

10.1 In said case, admittedly, cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and the concerned complainant had filed complaint against the opposite party before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata.

10.2 Such complaint was rejected and, therefore, the complainant filed appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal at Kolkata, which was allowed.

10.3 Such order was challenged before NCDRC by filing a revision and it was against the order passed by NCDRC that, CM(M) 2933/2024 & 10 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 initially, a Special Leave to Appeal was filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

10.4 However, in view of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain and Anr. : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 877, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court granted liberty to such petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

10.5 Because of the fact that NCDRC was situated in Delhi, petitioner treated the High Court of Delhi as jurisdictional High Court and filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10.6 Learned single Judge of this Court issued notice and feeling aggrieved by issuance of such notice, the matter, again, reached Supreme Court.

10.7 The question was whether High Court of Delhi could be treated as jurisdictional High Court or not?

10.8 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court answered the same by holding that the entire cause of action had arisen in Kolkata and merely because NCDRC had allowed the revision petition would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.

11. Paras 9 & 10 of said judgment in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee read as under:-

" 9. In our opinion, that can hardly be treated as a ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The respondent No.1 ought to have approached the High Court of Calcutta being aggrieved by the impugned judgment as the entire cause of action in the present case has arisen in Kolkata, where the patient was operated for ovarian cancer on 24th February, 2012, and expired on 30th July, 2014. The complaint case was filed at Kolkata based on the aforesaid cause of action. Merely, because the NCDRC has allowed the revision petitions filed by the appellants and the respondent no.2 would not be a ground to vest jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi.

10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi are disposed of with liberty granted to the respondent no.1 to approach the High Court of Calcutta for seeking appropriate relief......."

12. Thus, it is quite obvious that despite the fact that situs of NCDRC was in Delhi, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed and held that since cause of action had arisen in Kolkata, the jurisdictional High Court would be Calcutta High Court and mere fact that the petition had been allowed by the NCDRC would not bestow any jurisdiction to High Court of Delhi.

13. Despite the above specific observations, petitioners herein claim that this Court does have the jurisdiction.

14. As already noticed above, the lead case is CM(M) 2933/2024 and Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel has made submissions on behalf of petitioners in CM(M) 2933/2024 and CM(M) 2934/2024. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner i.e. Mahindra and Mahindra Farm Division has made submissions in CM(M) 1858/2023 and Mr. Harsh Kaushik, learned counsel for petitioner i.e. M/s India First Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has argued in CM(M) 82/2024.

15. It is, now, time to take note of the contentions raised by them.

16. Prime contentions of Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel can be summarized as under: -

Rather, it was the complainant who had challenged such order passed by said State Commission and since the appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by NCDRC, cause of action had arisen only consequent to such order passed in favour of the other side. Since „cause of action‟ arose by virtue of order passed by NCDRC, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

(iv) Cause of action comprises of bundle of facts and the orders passed by revisional and appellate authority would also give fresh cause of action.

(v) Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra) is not in synchronization with the previous judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in L Chandra (supra) and since the observations given by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India have binding effect, this Court is not bound by the observations given by Hon‟ble Division Bench in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra).

17. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri has also referred to UOI & Ors. v. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr. : ( 2002) 1 SCC 567, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. UOI & Anr. ( 2004) 6 SCC 254, Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise : 2007) 6 SCC 769, Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. : 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162, UOI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi & Ors.:

18. Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has contended that there is a fine distinction between Article 226 & Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the former confers jurisdiction based on „cause of action‟ whereas latter merely confines to the „situs‟ and, therefore, the aspect of situs cannot be ignored, particularly in view of specific observations made by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar (supra). He has also relied upon Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay : (2022) 3 SCC 133 and M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

jurisdictional High Court as referred in M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) would be Delhi High Court only and no other High Court.

18.2 Mr. Jayant K Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has also, in his usual humble manner, submitted that Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra) does not take note of Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) and L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and, therefore, observations made therein would not bind this Court.

19. Mr. Harsh Kaushik, learned counsel has also supplemented Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Ms. Kanika Agnihotri but has given another dimension to the aspect related to jurisdiction by coming up with a hybrid theory. According to him, though as per Siddhartha S. Mookerjee (supra), situs might be irrelevant but that does not mean that this Court cannot entertain any such petition. He has thus tried to take a „middle path‟ while coming up with a harmonious construction and submits that even if the jurisdictional High Court, in context of cause of action may be some other High Court, the jurisdiction would vest not only with such other High Court but with this Court also, in view of situs and location of Tribunal.

20. Before taking up the contentions of the respondents and analyzing the overall situation, it is also important to note that the decisions given CM(M) 2933/2024 & 16 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) have already been referred to a larger Bench by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi & Ors. (supra).

21. According to the petitioners, mere reference of matter to a larger Bench would not mean that the settled legal position should not be followed and while referring to Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. vs. Jammu Kashmir National Conference & Anr. : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140, it has been contended, and rightly so, that merely because any leading judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto was pending would not mean that the High Courts would not proceed to decide the matters on the basis of the law as it stood and, therefore, it was not open, unless specifically directed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, to await an outcome of such reference or view.

22. Let us now also take note of the arguments of Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent in CM(M) 2434/2024.

23. His contentions can be enumerated as under: -

24. Reliance has been placed upon Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India : ( 2004) 6 SCC 254, Angika Development Society v. Union of India & Ors. : W.P. (C) No. 11934 of 2023, Department Purchase Central in Charge (DPC) Jute Corporation of India Vs. Tapan Kumar CM(M ) 2933/2024 & 18 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 Barman & Ors. W.P. (C) 13628/2023 and Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Provident Fund Commissioner (2020) 19 SCC 380.

25. It may also be noted that respondent Mr. Rajeev Lochan Singh joined proceedings through video conferencing and stated that the petition would be maintainable in Delhi. Mr. R K Joshi, learned counsel for respondent in CM(M) No. 2407/2024 has, whereas, left it to the discretion of the Court to pass appropriate orders and has not made any other submission, either way.

26. It is now time to take up the precedents which have been cited at the Bar and which are germane to the issue of jurisdiction.

27. Let us first consider the pronouncement given in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) which is a Seven Judge Bench judgment.

27.1 The issues, which fell for consideration by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in said case, need to be noted. These were culled out in the opening paragraph as under: -

27.2 The facts therein were very simple.

27.3 The matter related to Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 whereby to secure speedy disposal of service matters, revenue matters and certain other matters of special importance in the context of the socio-economic development and progress, it was considered expedient to provide for administrative and other tribunals for dealing with such matters, while preserving the jurisdiction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in regard to such matters under Article 136 of the Constitution and while also making certain modifications in the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226.

27.4 Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India was inserted through said amendment which comprised Article 323-A and Article 323-B. 27.5 Article 323-A related to Administrative Tribunals whereas Article 323-B related to Tribunals for other matters. 27.6 Both the aforesaid Articles contained clauses, excluding the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 , with respect to the concerned disputes/matters.

judicial review conferred on the High Courts under Article 226/227 and upon the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, could be taken away and while answering the abovesaid questions, it was held that the power of judicial review was a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and, therefore, the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226/227 and on the Supreme Court under Article 32 was part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

27.8 It was thus held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226/227 and of Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 32 was unconstitutional.

27.9 In context of the question whether these Tribunals could test the vires or not and whether said aspect should only be permitted to be tested by the High Courts, it was held that such Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B possessed the competence to test the constitutional validity of the statutory provisions and rules. It was observed that all such decisions of these Tribunals, testing vires, would, however, be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction such Tribunal was situated.

27.10 It is, thus, very clear and evident from the ratio of the abovesaid judgment that such exclusion of jurisdiction of the High CM(M) 2933/2024 & 21 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 Courts under Article 226/227 and of Supreme Court under Article 32 was held to be unconstitutional.

28. It will be worthwhile to extract relevant observations appearing in paras 79, 90, 92 and 99 of L. Chandra (supra). These read as under: -

50. Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra) also follows the same line.

51. Evidently, the position cannot be equated when such Commission exercises jurisdiction spread over multiple States. In any such situation, the situs ought not to be the governing factor and one has to find out as to where the original action was initiated and thus the jurisdiction should also vest with concerned jurisdictional High Court only, irrespective of the fact whether such Tribunal was situated, elsewhere.

52. This Court is also mindful of the benevolent objective which seems achieved, albeit in the hindsight, by asking any such litigant to rather go to the High Court in whose jurisdiction, the original action was filed. It is, obviously, much convenient to the concerned litigant/consumer as well.

53. In Union of India Vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra), whereby, the decisions in L Chandra Kumar and Alapan have been referred to a Larger Bench, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court noted the submission made by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate that under the constitutional scheme, the remedies under Article 226 and Article 227 were extremely valuable remedies available to citizens where they reside or carry on business or were posted. The scheme did not require citizens to come exclusively all the way to Delhi to seek redressal. Thus, limiting such CM(M) 2933/2024 & 33 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 remedy would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, contrary to the spirit and principle of access to justice and contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution which enables judicial review across the country and not at one concentrated location.

54. In Ibrat Faizan (supra) also, it has been observed as under:-

55. Therefore, applying the same analogy, 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.

56. As per section 53 of Consumer Protection Act, the Central Government may, by notification, establish Regional Benches of the National Commission, at such places, as it deems fit. Naturally, if these CM(M) 2933/2024 & 34 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 are established, any order passed by any such Regional Bench can only be challenged before the jurisdictional High Court.

57. With the advent of technological advancement seen in modern era, any existing Bench can also be designated as a Regional Bench which can hear the matter through video-conferencing, even while stationed in Delhi. In said situation also, mere situs may not properly answer the issue of jurisdiction.

58. Sh. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent has apprised that earlier, several „circuit Benches‟ were constituted by NCDRC and sittings took place at different locations. In such a situation as well, the petition cannot lie in Delhi merely because of the fact that the main situs of NCDRC continues to be in Delhi.

59. 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.

60. This Court is unable to subscribe to the contention of the petitioners that said judgment is not binding or is per incuriam.

61. This Court also notes that in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court made reference to Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).

62. In Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), NCDRC dismissed the first appeal filed before it by the petitioner and thereby affirmed the order passed by State Commission, Delhi. Such order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The question was whether such Special Leave Petition could be entertained without asking any such petitioner to first go before the jurisdictional High Court.

63. Hon‟ble Supreme Court extensively referred to Ibrat Faizan (supra) and also noted L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) and came to the conclusion that the petitioner should rather be asked to first go to the jurisdictional High Court.

64. Para 38 and para 42 of said judgment read as under:-

66. Cause of action is bundle of facts existing at the stage of pre- institution of any case. After filing of case, merely because of the fact that the orders were passed, during the course of its legal journey, by a Superior Court or Authority should not be equated with accrual of any fresh cause of action.

67. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for petitioner has strongly relied upon Dr. Valsamma Chacko (supra) and has contended that in virtually similar fact-scenario, the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has dismissed writ petition filed under Article 227 , holding that since NCDRC fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi High Court, said court i.e. High Court of Kerala had no supervisory jurisdiction.

68. It is important to mention that though the judgment in said case was delivered by the High Court of Kerala on 31.07.2024, the concerned parties did not draw the attention of the Court to the above said pronouncement of Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra) and, therefore, this Court, very humbly, is not persuaded by said pronouncement of High Court of Kerala.

69. In view of foregoing discussion, it is quite apparent that as per the ratio decidendi and the binding principle in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) the exclusion of High Courts and Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the purposes of filing petitions under Article 226/227 and Article 32 respectively was held as unconstitutional. As noted already, the issue before the Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in said case was never in relation to the situs i.e., to which High Court any such petition under Article 227 could be filed.

70. The Authority in question i.e. NCDRC is a National Commission which entertains appeals and revisions, emanating from the orders passed by State Commissions situated across the country and keeping in mind the aforesaid unique feature of said Commission, it cannot be permitted to be contended that decision given in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra) would not be a binding one.

71. Moreover, Ambica Industries (supra) and Calcutta Gujarati (supra) also go on to hold that situs would not be a deciding factor where any such Tribunal or Authority exercises control over multiple States.

72. The words "jurisdictional High Court" as used in Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra) cannot be automatically inferred to be Delhi High Court only. 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 CM(M) 2933/2024 & 38 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 Court‟ having jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and such phrases "concerned High Court" and "Jurisdictional High Court"

73. Resultantly, all the present petitions are disposed of while holding that these petitions are not maintainable before this Court for want of jurisdiction. Needless to say, the petitioners would, always, be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy by filing petitions before the respective jurisdictional High Courts.

74. As per facts disclosed in these petitions, the following chart would indicate as to where the cause of action had arisen in the first instance: -

Vs. Birjendra Singh Mallik Redressal Commission, Since Deceased Thr LR Haryana at Panchkula 3 1818/2023 M/s Indus Hospitals, Rep. By District Consumer its Chairman Vs. Rajeev Disputes Redressal Lochan Singh Forum-II at Visakhapatnam.

Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Redressal Commission, Raj Kumar Punjab at Chandigarh 8 2292/2024 Varman Aviation Private State Consumer Disputes Limited Vs. Directorate of Redressal Commission, Civil Aviation, Government of Patna, Bihar Bihar 9 2637/2024 The Oriental Insurance Co. State Consumer Disputes Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Singh Kang Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh 10 2892/2024 Indrani Baishya & Ors. Vs. Assam State Consumer Chairman State Bank of India Disputes Redressal & Ors. Commission, Guwahati 11 3099/2024 DHFL Pramerica Life State Consumer Disputes Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Redressal Commission, Sohan Singh & Anr. Punjab at Chandigarh 12 2407/2024 Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Gujarat State Consumer Through its Manager Disputes Redressal Mahindra Agri Solutions Ltd. Commission at CM(M) 2933/2024 & 40 of 41 Other connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:12.09.2024 16:21:28 Vs. Patel Sangitaben Ahmedabad Jagdishbhai & Ors.

75. This Court also makes it clear that the impugned orders passed by NCDRC in the present bunch of petitions have not been gone into and tested by this Court at all and the present petitions have been disposed of only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

76. This Court acknowledges and appreciates the wonderful assistance rendered by learned counsel for both the sides.