Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 22.12.2021, by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has stayed order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts:
The appellant herein booked a flat in the project floated by the respondent herein. According to the appellant herein, despite the payment of sale consideration, the possession of the flat was not handed over and therefore the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Forum on the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The State Commission allowed the said complaint. The State Commission also directed the respondent herein to pay to the complainant compensation for the delayed period in the form of simple interest at the rate of 9% for the period from the date of possession of the flat was due to be delivered till the delivery of the possession. The appellant herein filed an execution and contempt petition before the State Commission. The State Commission directed the appellant to place on record the details of the bank accounts or the properties of the respondent which are to be attached for not implementing the judgment and order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the State Commission. Thereafter, the respondent-builder preferred an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission granted stay of the State Commission’s order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the National Commission, the respondent herein preferred writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
HC’s Decision:
The High Court stayed the operation of the order of National Commission dated 30.03.2021, subject to the builder depositing with the State Commission 50% of the amount directed to be deposited by way of interest towards compensation within four weeks.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without exhausting the said remedy, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was against the order passed by the National Commission in First Appeal. It was submitted that assuming that the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission, impugned before the High Court, was maintainable, in that case also, in the limited jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to have stayed the order passed by the National Commission dated 09.12.2021 passed in first appeal No. 250/2021.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as the appeal before the National Commission was under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, there is no further appeal provided against the order of the National Commission, as provided to the Supreme Court under section 67 of the 2019 Act, against the order passed by the National Commission under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. Hence, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.
SC’s Observations:
The issue before the SC was whether, against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable?
SC stated that as per Section 67 of the 2019 Act, any person, 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. Therefore, an appeal against the order passed by the National Commission to this Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act.
SC stated that the National Commission can be said to be a ‘Tribunal’ which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them. Therefore, it satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and therefore may be regarded as a ‘Tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India.
SC further stated that no so far as the remedy which may be available under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the remedy by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may be too expensive and as observed and held by this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar, the said remedy can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Therefore, when the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court is provided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, may be a complainant, to approach the concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, 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.”
Case Title: Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited
Bench: J. M.R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3072 OF 2022
Decided on: 13th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
