IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24111/2017 (GM-CON) BETWEEN:
M/s.NANDI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.K.S.MURALI S/O.K.M.SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS No.177/A, 22ND CROSS 7TH ‘B’ MAIN, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, OPP.NMKRV COLLEGE BANGALORE-560 011 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE – [ABSENT]) AND:
SMT.SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE A SURYANARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT No.227, WEST OF CHORD ROAD 2ND STAGE, 12TH ‘A’ CROSS MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560 086 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 16.02.2017 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENCH NO.3 AT NEW DELHI IN FIRST APPEAL NO.95 OF 2017 AS PER ANNX-M, ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION VIZ., "AND ALSO IN THE EVENT OF THE APPELLANTS DEPOSITING 50% OF THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IN TERMS OF RENT @ RS.15,000/- FOR EACH APARTMENT CALCULATED W.E.F. 09.04.2014 TILL DATE" IS CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING::
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the National Commissioner Disputes Redressal Commission Bench No.3, New Delhi in First Appeal No.95 of 2017 on Interim Application No.627/2017.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is absent.
3. This writ petition is listed today for orders inter alia regarding its maintainability. To examine this question, it is relevant to refer to the following made by the Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory [(2012)8 SCC 524]:
“9. While declining to interfere in the present special leave petition preferred against the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we hereby make it clear that the orders of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms of Section 27-A(1)(c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation issuing a direction of caution that it will not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petitions against such orders of the Commission.”
4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is quoted above, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE