In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3072 OF 2022-SC- Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution before concerned High Court against order passed by NCDRC in appeal u/s 58(1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, is maintainable: SC Justices M.R. Shah & B.V. Nagarathna [13-05-2022]

feature-top

Read Judgment: IBRAT FAIZAN Vs. OMAXE BILD HOME PRIVATE LIMTED

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, May 14, 2022:  Observing that no further appeal lies to the Apex Court against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Supreme Court has referred to its judgment in Associate Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N. Sharma and opined that the National Commission may be regarded as a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna asserted that the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Relevant facts for perusal of the present appeal were that the appellant booked a flat in the project initiated by the respondent. It was the appellant’s claim that despite the payment of sale consideration, the possession of flat was not handed over and therefore the appellant instituted a consumer complaint before the Delhi State Redressal Consumer Forum which was allowed by the State Forum.

Consequently, the respondent-builder preferred an appeal before the National Commission. The Commission granted stay to the order of the State Commission, however subject to deposit of the entire cost of the flat along with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. The original-respondent preferred the present appeal, feeling aggrieved with the impugned interim order passed by the High Court of Delhi which stayed an order passed by the NCDRC.

While going through the provision, the Court noted that in the instant case, the appeal before the National Commission was against the order passed by the State Commission under Section 47 (1) (a) of the 2019 Act. With respect to the order passed by the State Commission, an appeal is maintainable in the National Commission as stated under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act, the Court noted. 

Thereafter, the Court observed that under Section 67 of the 2019 Act, any person who is aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench asserted, “In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above and subject to the observations made hereinabove, it cannot be said that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was not maintainable.”

Thus, the Top Court concluded that the writ petition in question  instituted under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution  before the High Court was certainly maintainable. The present appeal was accordingly dismissed. 

Add a Comment