Summary
A flat purchaser's complaint against a builder was allowed by the Delhi State Commission in 2020 and affirmed by the National Commission on 09.12.2021 in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The builder challenged that order before the Delhi High Court under Article 227, which stayed it and, at this Court's request, held the writ petition maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the purchaser's appeal: Section 67 of the 2019 Act provides an appeal to the Supreme Court only against National Commission orders under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or (ii), not against its appellate orders under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv); the National Commission is a 'tribunal' and a writ under Article 227, cheaper and more accessible than Article 136, is maintainable, though the High Court, including when granting interim stay, must act within the limits of Article 227.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution lies to the High Court against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed in an appeal from a State Commission under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Whether the National Commission is a 'tribunal' amenable to the superintendence of the High Court under Article 227.
- Within what limits the High Court may grant interim stay of a National Commission order in such a petition.
Provisions considered
- Sections 47(1)(a), 58(1)(a)(i)–(iv) and 67, Consumer Protection Act, 2019The builder's appeal to the National Commission against the State Commission's order in a complaint under Section 47(1)(a) lay under Section 58(1)(a)(iii); Section 67 confers an appeal to the Supreme Court only against orders made under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or (ii), so no further statutory appeal exists against an order under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv), leaving the aggrieved party to approach the High Court under Article 227. The appellant's reliance on Section 27A(1)(c) of the 1986 Act was not accepted. (¶¶ 8.1, 9, 11)
- Articles 136 and 227, Constitution of IndiaApplying the Constitution Bench test in Associated Cement Companies v. P.N. Sharma, a statutory authority empowered to determine conclusively the rights of contending parties is a 'tribunal' within Articles 136 and 227; the National Commission satisfies that test. L. Chandra Kumar holds that the High Courts' judicial review under Articles 226/227 over tribunals cannot be excluded, and Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society treated recourse to the High Court under Article 227 against Commission orders as a safeguard supporting the Act's validity. Special leave under Article 136 may be too expensive and inaccessible, so the Article 227 remedy furthers access to justice. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 12.2, 13, 14)
Held
- Against an order of the National Commission passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act no appeal lies to the Supreme Court under Section 67, which is confined to orders under Section 58(1)(a)(i) and (ii); the remedy available to the aggrieved party is a writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court having jurisdiction. (¶ 11)
- The National Commission is vested by statute with power to determine conclusively the rights of contending parties and is therefore a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Articles 227 and 136; in a given case this Court may decline to exercise its Article 136 power in view of the Article 227 remedy before the High Court, which is the appropriate course, is less costly and better serves the right of access to justice. (¶¶ 12, 12.1, 12.2, 13)
- The High Court committed no error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 against the National Commission's appellate order, but in doing so it subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 as explained in Estralla Rubber and Garment Craft; even when considering interim stay or relief in such a petition the High Court must bear in mind its limited jurisdiction of superintendence, and any interim relief against a National Commission order is always subject to that rigour. The merits, pending before the High Court, were left open. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Delhi High Court's orders of 22.12.2021 and 31.03.2022 in CM(M) No. 1196 of 2021, holding a writ petition under Article 227 maintainable against the National Commission's order of 09.12.2021 in First Appeal No. 250 of 2021 under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, upheld; the High Court to decide the merits and any interim relief bearing in mind the limits of Article 227. No order as to costs.