Writs challenging NCDRC orders for lack of coram are not maintainable when statutory appeals are pending before the Supreme Court.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 07.05.2024 passed by a single-member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Consumer Complaint No. 938/2017, as well as a subsequent review dismissal dated 06.02.2026

The Petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 329/2026) which was withdrawn with liberty to file a review before the NCDRC.

Following the dismissal of that review, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the NCDRC orders and stay pending execution proceedings (EA No. 141/2025), alleging that the single-member Bench lacked jurisdiction

1. Whether the order passed by a single-member Bench of the NCDRC suffers from the defect of coram non judice for failing to meet the mandatory two-member composition

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when a statutory appeal and the specific legal issue are currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The court primarily considered Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA, 2019), which provides for a direct statutory appeal from the NCDRC to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

It acknowledged the principle of coram non judice regarding the composition of Tribunals

The court also relied on the doctrine of judicial propriety and discipline, noting that the Supreme Court is currently seized of the same jurisdictional question in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Aczet Private Limited (Civil Appeal No. 3743/2023) and related matters

The Petitioner argued that NCDRC orders passed by a single member are non-est and illegal as the law mandates a two-member coram

However, the High Court observed that the Respondent produced evidence showing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is currently examining this "issue of seminal importance"—specifically whether a two-member Bench must include a Judicial Member—in a batch of statutory appeals

The Court noted that in the present case, the order was passed by a sole Judicial Member (President) rather than a non-judicial member

The Court reasoned that since an efficacious alternative remedy exists via Section 67 of the CPA, 2019, and the apex court is already adjudicating the identical legal question, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to intervene via writ jurisdiction

It held that judicial discipline requires the High Court to refrain from examining the issue while it is pending before the Supreme Court

The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 67 of the CPA, 2019, where all grounds, including the plea of coram non judice, may be urged