As per case facts, this application challenged an NCDRC order dismissing a revision against a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order. The respondents argued the application, styled as a Writ ... Petition under Article 226/227, was not maintainable as all respondents were private parties, not "State" entities. The petitioners contended it was maintainable and proposed adding NCDRC as a party. The question arose whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against private parties, and if NCDRC can be added as a proper party to render it maintainable under Article 226. Finally, the Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a Writ Petition under Article 226 is not maintainable solely against private parties and that NCDRC, as a statutory Tribunal, is not a necessary or "main" respondent. Therefore, the application could not be entertained under Article 226 but was converted to an application under Article 227 for consideration by the appropriate Bench.