Writ Petition under Art. 227 of the Indian Constitution is maintainable against the orders passed by the NCDRC in its appellate jurisdiction.

In the matter of Ibrat Faizan Vs. Onmaxe Buildhome Private Limited, Civil Appela No. 3072 of 2022, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 13.05.2022.

Brief Facts of the Case-

The Appellant/original complainant filed a complaint before SCDRC, Delhi on the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice that despite payment of sale consideration, the Respondent builder has not handed over the possession of the flat to the Complainant. SCDRC vide order dated 16.10.2020, allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to handover possession of the flat with 9% interest. Against the said decision, the Respondet filed appeal before the NCDRC, wherein NCDRC vide order dated 09.12.2021 confirmed the order passed by the State Commission.

Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent filed a writ petition u/A 227 before the Delhi High Court which stayed the order of SCDRC subject to deposit of 50% of the directed amount and vide another order also decided the question of maintainability of writ petition u/A 227 against an order of NCDRC.

Issue before the Court-

The jurisdiction of the High Court u/A 227 against the order of NCDRC, in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, is the moot question before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Observation and Analysis of the Court-

Placing reliance on sec 58 (jurisdiction of NCDRC) and sec 67 (appeal against order of NCDRC) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Apex Court observed that an appeal against the order of the National Commission to the Supreme Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exercise of its power conferred u/s 58(1)(a)(i) and (ii) i.e. original complaints. No further appeals to the Supreme Court are provided against the order of NCDRC, therefore, the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the NCDRC in an appeal u/s 58(1)(a)(iii) and (iv), would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction u/A 227 of the Indian Constitution.

Placing reliance on the judgment of Associate Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, the Court further held 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. NCDRC therefore, 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.

The Apex Court further observed that in a given case, it may not exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is appropriate and cost effective that the aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.