M/S Sahu Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Srivastava … v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 others

Appellate or revisional jurisdiction can be challenged before the High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? B. If yes, then under what circumstances should such writs be entertained and what is the scope of challenege before the writ court under Article 226? CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions: a. On the date of launch of the plotting scheme, the concerned land was not under any consolidation operations. b. The petitioner sought information from respondent authorities regarding the initiation, stage and date of completion of the consolidation proceedings in the concerned village but a vague and unclear reply was given leading to complete uncertainty and confusion thereby rendering the petitioner incapable of completing the project. c. The petitioner is in absolute possession and occupation of the land on which the residential plotting scheme has been launched and has clear title to the said land without any encumbrance. 5 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 d. Petitioner is willing to provide possession to customers once the development work is completed but due to an unforeseen event that is initiation of the consolidation proceedings which is beyond the control of the petitioner and is akin to force majeure event under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, petitioners work has come to halt. e. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the customer is not entitled to any interest but only to the refund of actual amount when there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner f. Despite the supervening legal impediment and doctrine of frustration/impossibility of performance under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, due to initiation of consolidation proceedings, respondent nos. 5 to 7 initiated consumer complaints alleging deficiency of service and sought refund with interest and accordingly the impugned order dated January 9, 2024 was passed by District Commission directing refund alongwith interest which suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness and complete non-consideration of the statutory bar under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. g. To buttress his arguments, counsel has placed reliance on Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. reported in AIR 1954 SC 44); Alopi Prasad & Sons v. Union of India reported in AIR 1960 SC 588; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354; Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2019) 8 SCC. 416 wherein the Supreme Court has held supervening impossibility/illegality discharges contractual obligations 6 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 and court may intervene to grant interim protection from consumer redressal proceedings. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has rebutted the arguments of petitioner and made following submissions: a. The petitioner was unable to deliver the possession of the land within time, therefore he is liable to return the aforesaid amount alongwith interest to the respondents. b. The order of the District Commission was passed after perusal of evidence and was upheld by the State Commission and thereafter the National Commission that held that the order does not suffer from any illegality. b. The writ petition is not maintainable before this court as there is an alternative remedy to approach the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Act. ANALYSIS

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials placed on record.

7. The framework of the Consumer Protection Act was provided by a resolution dated April 9, 1985 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation which is known as “Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248”. India is a signatory to the said Resolution. Ergo, the Act was enacted in pursuance of the said Resolution. It further seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith, as would appear from the Statement 7 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 of Objects and Reasons of the Act inter alia to promote and protect the rights of consumers.

8. In the present case writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for interfering with the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance of an order passed by District Commission which was affirmed by State Commission and National Commission.

9. The petitioner then preferred a revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act before National Commission wherein the commission has converted the said revision into second appeal under Section 51(2) of the Act which was dismissed too for the reason that no substantial question of law was involved in the matter. The order passed by National Commission is quoted hereinbelow: “These are Revision Petitions filed against the order dated 01.08.2024 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein the appeals filed by the Petitioner were dismissed. The question before us is whether these three Revision Petitions are maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In a recent order of this Commission in RP/1879/2024, Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Ors, decided on 20.01.2025, it has been held that revisional power of this Commission is not available for orders arising out of a complaint before the District Commission or out of an appellate order of the State Commission. Further it has been held that the orders pending a complaint before the District Commission or after a decision would only be revisable before the State Commission and not before this Commission under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that those revision petitions were filed before this order of the Commission and therefore the Revision Petitions may be converted into Second Appeal under Section 51(2). Accordingly these Revision Petitions are converted as Second Appeal. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties. The Section dealing with Second Appeal in the 2019 Act, which is Section 51(2), clearly states that there should be a substantial question of law involved for filing of Second Appeal. On hearing arguments and on perusal of record, we find there are no substantial questions of law involved in the Second Appeal as the State Commissioner, had reiterated the order of the District Commission which has been passed after taking into account the evidences and hearing the parties. In the grounds of Second Appeal, only issues relating to facts have been mentioned like allotment of plot, giving possession development work, etc. which have been adequately dealt with by this 8 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 Commission. Accordingly, these three Revision Petitions converted as Second Appeal are dismissed as not maintainable. These three Second Appeals arising out of the same matter and decided by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the same date but by different orders, again we find that the Second Appeals have been filed without any question of any substantial law involved in the matter. Accordingly, these three Second Appeals are also dismissed as not maintainable.”

10. The petitioner heavily relies on the order passed by National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Smt. Mavuram Sujatha and others; (Revision Petition no. 1879 of 2024, decided on January 20, 2025) to submit that the National Commission has itself stated in the said order to invoke writ jurisdiction before High Court against the order of the State Commission. The paragraphs of the order relied upon by the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow: “71. Accordingly, we do not find that the power to revise a revisional order passed by the State Commission is available to us. The order of the State Commission in the present case cannot be stated to be an order in an original complaint of a consumer dispute pending before the State Commission. Admittedly, the dispute is pending before the District Commission and not before the State Commission. Consequently, we cannot assume the revisional jurisdiction on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

72. We may also point out that the remedy by way of a Writ Petition has been held to be available in the judgments referred to above, and in the absence of any statutory specific remedy, it is open to the aggrieved party to approach the jurisdictional High Court for redressal of their grievances. The compilation, therefore, presented as a Revision Petition, being not maintainable under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is hereby dismissed.”

11. Per contra, the respondents vehemently rebuked the arguments of the petitioner and contend that the District Commission has rightly passed an order dated January 9, 2024 which was decided against petitioner wherein it was directed to deposit Rs. 8,64,000/-alongwith 9% annual interest to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment within 30 days from the date of order due to default of the petitioner. 9 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025

12. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held that alternative remedy will not act as a bar for writ court in the contingencies. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged……...” (Emphasis added)

13. In Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 has reiterated the view of Whirlpool Corporation (Supra) and held as follows: “7……..In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged……..” (Emphasis added)

14. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 has discussed in detail about the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also laid down principles of law that emanates from a plethora of precedents. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “C.1. Maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court

24. The High Court has dealt with the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on the decision of this 10 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 Court in CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 681 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440] , the High Court noted that although it can entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so when the aggrieved person has an effective alternate remedy available in law. However, certain exceptions to this “rule of alternate remedy” include where, the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or has resorted to invoke provisions, which are repealed; or where an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation, the High Court noted that the appellant has an alternate remedy available under the GST Act and thus, the petition was not maintainable.

25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on the “rule of alternate remedy” and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted : (SCC pp. 9-10, paras 14- 15) “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”.

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”

26. Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool [Whirlpool Corpn. 11 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025

Appellate or revisional jurisdiction can be challenged before the High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? B. If yes, then under what circumstances should such writs be entertained and what is the scope of challenege before the writ court under Article 226? CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions: a. On the date of launch of the plotting scheme, the concerned land was not under any consolidation operations. b. The petitioner sought information from respondent authorities regarding the initiation, stage and date of completion of the consolidation proceedings in the concerned village but a vague and unclear reply was given leading to complete uncertainty and confusion thereby rendering the petitioner incapable of completing the project. c. The petitioner is in absolute possession and occupation of the land on which the residential plotting scheme has been launched and has clear title to the said land without any encumbrance. 5 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 d. Petitioner is willing to provide possession to customers once the development work is completed but due to an unforeseen event that is initiation of the consolidation proceedings which is beyond the control of the petitioner and is akin to force majeure event under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, petitioners work has come to halt. e. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the customer is not entitled to any interest but only to the refund of actual amount when there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner f. Despite the supervening legal impediment and doctrine of frustration/impossibility of performance under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, due to initiation of consolidation proceedings, respondent nos. 5 to 7 initiated consumer complaints alleging deficiency of service and sought refund with interest and accordingly the impugned order dated January 9, 2024 was passed by District Commission directing refund alongwith interest which suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness and complete non-consideration of the statutory bar under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. g. To buttress his arguments, counsel has placed reliance on Satyabrata Ghosh v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. reported in AIR 1954 SC 44); Alopi Prasad & Sons v. Union of India reported in AIR 1960 SC 588; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354; Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2019) 8 SCC. 416 wherein the Supreme Court has held supervening impossibility/illegality discharges contractual obligations 6 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 and court may intervene to grant interim protection from consumer redressal proceedings. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has rebutted the arguments of petitioner and made following submissions: a. The petitioner was unable to deliver the possession of the land within time, therefore he is liable to return the aforesaid amount alongwith interest to the respondents. b. The order of the District Commission was passed after perusal of evidence and was upheld by the State Commission and thereafter the National Commission that held that the order does not suffer from any illegality. b. The writ petition is not maintainable before this court as there is an alternative remedy to approach the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Act. ANALYSIS

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials placed on record.

7. The framework of the Consumer Protection Act was provided by a resolution dated April 9, 1985 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation which is known as “Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248”. India is a signatory to the said Resolution. Ergo, the Act was enacted in pursuance of the said Resolution. It further seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith, as would appear from the Statement 7 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 of Objects and Reasons of the Act inter alia to promote and protect the rights of consumers.

8. In the present case writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for interfering with the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance of an order passed by District Commission which was affirmed by State Commission and National Commission.

9. The petitioner then preferred a revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act before National Commission wherein the commission has converted the said revision into second appeal under Section 51(2) of the Act which was dismissed too for the reason that no substantial question of law was involved in the matter. The order passed by National Commission is quoted hereinbelow: “These are Revision Petitions filed against the order dated 01.08.2024 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein the appeals filed by the Petitioner were dismissed. The question before us is whether these three Revision Petitions are maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In a recent order of this Commission in RP/1879/2024, Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Ors, decided on 20.01.2025, it has been held that revisional power of this Commission is not available for orders arising out of a complaint before the District Commission or out of an appellate order of the State Commission. Further it has been held that the orders pending a complaint before the District Commission or after a decision would only be revisable before the State Commission and not before this Commission under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that those revision petitions were filed before this order of the Commission and therefore the Revision Petitions may be converted into Second Appeal under Section 51(2). Accordingly these Revision Petitions are converted as Second Appeal. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties. The Section dealing with Second Appeal in the 2019 Act, which is Section 51(2), clearly states that there should be a substantial question of law involved for filing of Second Appeal. On hearing arguments and on perusal of record, we find there are no substantial questions of law involved in the Second Appeal as the State Commissioner, had reiterated the order of the District Commission which has been passed after taking into account the evidences and hearing the parties. In the grounds of Second Appeal, only issues relating to facts have been mentioned like allotment of plot, giving possession development work, etc. which have been adequately dealt with by this 8 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 Commission. Accordingly, these three Revision Petitions converted as Second Appeal are dismissed as not maintainable. These three Second Appeals arising out of the same matter and decided by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the same date but by different orders, again we find that the Second Appeals have been filed without any question of any substantial law involved in the matter. Accordingly, these three Second Appeals are also dismissed as not maintainable.”

10. The petitioner heavily relies on the order passed by National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Smt. Mavuram Sujatha and others; (Revision Petition no. 1879 of 2024, decided on January 20, 2025) to submit that the National Commission has itself stated in the said order to invoke writ jurisdiction before High Court against the order of the State Commission. The paragraphs of the order relied upon by the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow: “71. Accordingly, we do not find that the power to revise a revisional order passed by the State Commission is available to us. The order of the State Commission in the present case cannot be stated to be an order in an original complaint of a consumer dispute pending before the State Commission. Admittedly, the dispute is pending before the District Commission and not before the State Commission. Consequently, we cannot assume the revisional jurisdiction on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

72. We may also point out that the remedy by way of a Writ Petition has been held to be available in the judgments referred to above, and in the absence of any statutory specific remedy, it is open to the aggrieved party to approach the jurisdictional High Court for redressal of their grievances. The compilation, therefore, presented as a Revision Petition, being not maintainable under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is hereby dismissed.”

11. Per contra, the respondents vehemently rebuked the arguments of the petitioner and contend that the District Commission has rightly passed an order dated January 9, 2024 which was decided against petitioner wherein it was directed to deposit Rs. 8,64,000/-alongwith 9% annual interest to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment within 30 days from the date of order due to default of the petitioner. 9 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025

12. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held that alternative remedy will not act as a bar for writ court in the contingencies. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged……...” (Emphasis added)

13. In Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 has reiterated the view of Whirlpool Corporation (Supra) and held as follows: “7……..In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged……..” (Emphasis added)

14. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 has discussed in detail about the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also laid down principles of law that emanates from a plethora of precedents. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “C.1. Maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court

24. The High Court has dealt with the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on the decision of this 10 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025 Court in CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [CCT v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 681 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440] , the High Court noted that although it can entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so when the aggrieved person has an effective alternate remedy available in law. However, certain exceptions to this “rule of alternate remedy” include where, the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or has resorted to invoke provisions, which are repealed; or where an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation, the High Court noted that the appellant has an alternate remedy available under the GST Act and thus, the petition was not maintainable.

25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on the “rule of alternate remedy” and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted : (SCC pp. 9-10, paras 14- 15) “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”.

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”

26. Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool [Whirlpool Corpn. 11 WRIC No. - 8939 of 2025