The court ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 against private parties is not maintainable and directed the petitioners to seek remedy under Article 227.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Om Narayan Rai, dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. Tripti Das against Dr. Phani Bhusan Mandal and others, emphasizing the limitations of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The case, W.P.A. 2580 of 2025, was decided on February 16, 2026, and involved a challenge against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order.
The court clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained solely against private parties unless they perform public duties or the case involves jurisdictional challenges, violations of fundamental rights, or principles of natural justice. In this instance, all respondents were private parties, rendering the petition under Article 226 non-maintainable.
Justice Rai highlighted that the appropriate recourse for challenging NCDRC orders, when only private parties are involved, is under Article 227. The court further noted that the NCDRC does not qualify as a necessary party to defend its orders in such writ petitions.
Despite the petitioners' arguments, supported by precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Calcutta High Court adhered to established judicial principles. Dr. Saha, representing the petitioners, had argued for the inclusion of the NCDRC as a proper party to maintain the petition under Article 226. However, the court maintained that mere inclusion does not suffice unless the NCDRC is the main respondent or the case presents exceptional circumstances.
Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in similar contexts, the court underscored that writ remedies, being discretionary, do not automatically apply when an effective alternative remedy exists. The judgment drew upon precedents like Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil and Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited to support its stance.
Ultimately, the court directed the conversion of the writ petition into an application under Article 227, for placement before the appropriate bench. This decision underscores the judiciary's adherence to procedural propriety and the necessity of directing cases to the correct jurisdictional pathway.
Bottom Line:
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable solely against private parties unless the respondents are performing public duties or the case involves a challenge to jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, or principles of natural justice.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Article 227, Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Dr. Tripti Das v. Dr. Phani Bhusan Mandal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853914
