NCDRC is 'tribunal'; writ petition under Article 227 in High Court maintainable against NCDRC order: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is a 'tribunal ’ within the meaning of Articles 227 and 136 of the Constitution of India. [Ibrat Faizan vs Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited].A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna thus held that a writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court, against an order passed by NCDRC under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (Act), is maintainable since no other appellate remedy is provided in such cases. "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, as observed hereinabove in the aforesaid decision, 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," the judgment stated..The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against an order of the Delhi High Court which had stayed a December 2021 order of the NCDRC while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. By way of background, the appellant had booked a flat in the project floated by the respondent. 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. By an order dated October 16, 2020, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to handover possession of the flat booked by the appellant subject to their meeting the requirements. The State Commission also directed the respondent to pay to the complainant – appellant 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.Another round of litigation happened regarding execution of the said order.Eventually, the NCDRC passed an order on December 9, 2021 confirming the order passed by State Commission. Aggrieved, the respondent-builder approached the High Court against the same by way of a writ petition under Article 227. The High Court by way of an order dated December 22, 2021 stayed the operation of the NCDRC order. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court..The question before the top court was as to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution against orders passed by the NCDRC in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act.The said section deals with appeals against the orders of any State Commission.While counsel for the respondent maintained that such petitions were maintainable, counsel for the appellant said the provision to appeal available under Section 27A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act has to first be exercised in this case. Appeals under said Section are to be heard directly at the Supreme Court.The appellant's counsel added that even if the petition at the High Court was held maintainable, it could not have passed the kind of order it did under its powers of superintendence under Article 227. The Supreme Court noted that as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, an appeal against the order passed by the NCDRC will lie to the Supreme Court only in case the order by NCDRC is passed exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act. When the NCDRC order is passed in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the Act, no appeal is provided to the Supreme Court. .In such cases, the remedy available to aggrieved parties against orders of the NCDRC is to approach the concerned High Court under Article 227. The decision in Associated Cements vs PN Sharma was relied on to hold that such national fora are tribunals under Article 227.‘ ... in a given case, this Court 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 that aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India", the top court observed..The Court, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the present appeal, stressing that the remedy under Article 227 is provided so that it would further the right of access to justice of the aggrieved, at a lower cost than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136..Advocate Sudeepta Kumar Pal appeared for the appellant while advocate Karanjot Singh Mainee represented the respondent. .[Read Judgment]