Constitution only. 1 (2024) 9 SCC 148 2 Appeal (C) No. 15651/2020 & Anr. v. Madhab Chand Mitter & Another5 and submitted that in the said case & Ors.

NCDRC should be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution only. 1 (2024) 9 SCC 148 2 Appeal (C) No. 15651/2020, decided on 08.01. 2025

He further relied on a judgment of the Hon9ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Rajeev Chaturvedi vs. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority & Another3 and submitted that in the facts of the present case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable. It was submitted that the only avenue available to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the NCDRC is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

In response to the submissions of Dr. Saha, Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 relied on a judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil4 and submitted that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained only against private parties. He next relied on a judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddhartha S. Mookerjee & Another vs. Madhab Chand Mitter & Another5 and submitted that in the said case the Hon9ble Supreme Court had directed the parties to approach the Hon9ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since only private parties were involved in the matter.

Mr. Das next relied on the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited6 and submitted that in the said case, the Hon9ble Supreme Court had held that since the NCDRC is a Tribunal therefore the most appropriate remedy for a