Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 227 Against National Commission's Order

The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered a significant judgment in Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, which addresses the scope of a High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in cases arising under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Court clarified that a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against the National Commission’s order passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act.

Background of the Case

The case arose when the appellant, Ibrat Faizan, booked a flat in a residential project run by Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, a real estate developer. Despite making full payments, possession of the flat was not handed over. Faizan filed a complaint before the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Forum on 10th August 2013, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices. The State Commission ruled in his favor, directing the builder to hand over possession and pay compensation for the delayed period.

The builder, aggrieved by this order, appealed to the National Commission, which upheld the State Commission’s ruling. However, the builder again approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the National Commission to pass such an order. The High Court allowed a stay on the National Commission’s order.

Key Legal Issues

Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable against an order of the National Commission passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The extent of the High Court’s power to interfere in orders passed by the National Commission.
Whether the High Court was correct in staying the operation of the National Commission’s order.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Ibrat Faizan)

The petitioner argued that:

The appeal before the National Commission was based on a final decision made by the State Commission under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and there was no provision for further appeal.
The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 should be invoked to correct errors of law made by the National Commission.
The builder had failed to honor the consumer’s rights, and judicial intervention was required to expedite the process.

Counterarguments by the Respondent (Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited)

The respondent argued that:

The order of the National Commission was binding and could only be appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the 2019 Act.
The High Court should not entertain a writ petition as a remedy against the National Commission’s order.
The High Court’s interference was unwarranted and should be dismissed.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. High Court’s Jurisdiction Under Article 227

“The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, can review an order passed by the National Commission in cases where no further appeal is available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.”

The Court observed that the High Court’s supervisory role under Article 227 applies to cases where there is no statutory remedy available, ensuring that the National Commission’s orders are just and equitable.

2. Need for Judicial Oversight

“While the Consumer Protection Act provides a framework for the redressal of consumer grievances, the High Court retains the power to examine the correctness of orders passed by quasi-judicial bodies like the National Commission.”

The Court emphasized that such oversight ensures fairness and protects the interests of consumers.

3. Jurisdiction of the National Commission

“The National Commission, when acting under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, can pass orders in appeals from State Commissions, and such orders are subject to review by the High Court under Article 227, provided there is no other statutory appeal.”

The ruling clarified that although there is no appeal to the Supreme Court from orders passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii), aggrieved parties can seek redress through a writ petition in the High Court.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The High Court’s decision to entertain the writ petition was correct and upheld its jurisdiction under Article 227.
The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed.
The High Court was directed to continue hearing the writ petition based on its jurisdictional considerations.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment has important implications:

Jurisdictional Clarity: The ruling clarifies the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to review orders passed by the National Commission in certain circumstances.
Consumer Protection: Reinforces the High Court’s role in safeguarding consumer rights and ensuring that orders from the National Commission align with the law.
Strengthened Legal Framework: Establishes a clearer pathway for parties to challenge orders in the absence of further statutory appeals.
Ensured Fairness: The Court’s decision ensures that aggrieved consumers can access judicial remedies even when higher appellate avenues are unavailable.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment upholds the supervisory role of High Courts over quasi-judicial bodies like the National Commission, emphasizing judicial oversight in cases where statutory remedies are insufficient.

Petitioner Name: Ibrat Faizan.
Respondent Name: Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 13-05-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ibrat-faizan-vs-omaxe-buildhome-priv-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-13-05-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category