IBRAT FAIZAN versus OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED on 13 May 2022

632

[2022] 4 S.C.R. 632

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 4 S.C.R.

A

IBRAT FAIZAN

v.

OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED

(Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022)

BMAY 13, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Constitution of India: Art. 227 – Petition under –Maintainability of, against the order of National Consumer DisputeRedressal Commission in an appeal u/s. 58(1)(a)(iii) – Held: IsCmaintainable – National Commission can be said to be a ‘tribunal’which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively therights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matterin controversy between them – It satisfies the test of an authorityvested with the judicial powers of the State and thus, regarded as aD‘tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 227 and/or 136 – Also, in agiven case, this Court may not exercise its powers u/Art. 136, inview of the remedy available to the aggrieved party before theconcerned High Court u/Art 227, as it is appropriate that aggrievedparty approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petitionu/Art. 227 – Also, remedy by way of special leave u/Art. 136 may beEtoo expensive and can be said to be inaccessible for it to be realand effective – Thus, the High Court did not commit any error inentertaining the writ petition u/Art. 227 against the order passed byNational Commission – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – ss.58(1)(a)(iii), 67.

F

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In the present case, the appeal before theNational Commission was against the order passed by the StateCommission under Section 47(1)(a) of the Consumer ProtectionAct, 2019. Therefore, against the order passed by the StateGCommission passed in a complaint in exercise of its powersconferred under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act, an appeal tothe National Commission was maintainable, as provided underSection 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. As per Section 67 of the2019 Act, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the NationalHCommission of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58, may prefer an appealagainst such order to the Supreme Court. Therefore, an appealagainst the order passed by the National Commission to thisCourt would be maintainable only in case the order is passed bythe National Commission in exercise of its powers conferredunder Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019Act. No further appeal to this Court is provided against the orderpassed by the National Commission in exercise of its powersconferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv)of the Act. In that view of the matter, the remedy which may beavailable to the aggrieved party against the order passed by theNational Commission in an appeal u/s.58(1)(a)(iii) or s. 58(1)(a)(iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court havingjurisdiction u/Art. 227. [Para 11][641-D-G]

1.2 The National Commission can be said to be a ‘Tribunal’which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusivelythe rights of two or more contending parties with regard to anymatter in controversy between them. Therefore, it satisfies thetest of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the Stateand therefore may be regarded as a ‘Tribunal’ within the meaningof Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. Also, in agiven case, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article136 , in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrievedparty before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, as it is appropriate that aggrieved partyapproaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12][642-H;643-A-C]

Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P. N. SharmaAIR 1965 SC 1595 : [1965] SCR 366 – followed.

1.3 The remedy by way of an appeal by special leave underArticle 136 of the Constitution of India may be too expensive.The said remedy can be said to be inaccessible for it to be realand effective. Therefore, when the remedy under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India before the concerned High Court isprovided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of the right ofaccess to justice of the aggrieved party, may be a complainant, toapproach the concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 4 S.C.R.

ASpecial Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.[Para 13][645-B-D]

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – followed.

1.4 In the instant case, the High Court has not committedBany error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 againstthe order passed by the National Commission which has beenpassed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the 2019 Act.The view taken by the High Court is upheld. However, at thesame time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powersCunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courtsubjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution andthe High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction u/Art.227 withinthe parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to beexercised. [Para 14][645-D-F]

D1.5 While exercising the powers under Article 227 of theConstitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters toexercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Evenwhile considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courthas to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendenceEunder Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while grantingany interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of theConstitution against an order passed by the National Commission,the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to beexercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [ParaF15][645-G-H; 646-A-B]

1.6 It cannot be said that a writ petition under Article 227of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Courtagainst the order passed by the National Commission in an appealunder Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was not maintainable.GThe view taken by the High Court is upheld. [Para 16][646-B-C]

State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House BuildingCo-operative Society and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 412 :[2003] 1 SCR 397; Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P)Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 68; Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) SCCOnline SC 29 - referred to.

A

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3072of 2022.

C

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2021 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 1196 of 2021.

Sudeepta Kr. Pal, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.

Karanjot Singh Mainee, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Sudarshan Rajan,Advs. for the Respondent.

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interimorder passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 22.12.2021passed in CM(M) No. 1196/2021, by which the learned Single Judge ofthe High Court has stayed order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short,National Commission’), while hearing a writ petition filed under Article227 of the Constitution of India, in which the respondent hereinchallenged the judgment and order passed by the National Commissionin First Appeal No. 250/2021, the original respondent before the HighCourt has preferred the present appeal.

E

F

E

F

2. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court dated21.03.2022 in the special leave petition, by a detailed order dated31.03.2022, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has answeredthe question of jurisdiction and has held that against the order passed bythe National Commission dated 9.12.2021 in First appeal No. 250/2021,a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India. By way of Interlocutory Application No. 58657/2022, the appellant G

H

Aherein has sought permission to amend the special leave petition, whichis allowed.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by theHigh Court holding that against the order passed by the NationalCommission passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of theBConsumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2019Act’), a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiawould be maintainable, the original respondent before the High Courthas preferred the present appeal before this Court.

4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of theCConstitution of India, against the order passed by the NationalCommission, in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, isthe moot question for consideration before this Court.

5. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are asunder:

D

The appellant herein booked a flat in the project floated by therespondent herein. According to the appellant herein, despite the paymentof sale consideration, the possession of the flat was not handed over andtherefore the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the Delhi StateConsumer Redressal Forum (for short, ‘State Commission’) on 10.08.2013Eon the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Byorder dated 16.10.2020, the State Commission allowed the said complaintdirecting the respondent herein to handover possession of the flat bookedby the appellant subject to their meeting the requirements. The StateCommission also directed the respondent herein to pay to the complainant– appellant herein compensation for the delayed period in the form ofFsimple interest at the rate of 9% for the period from the date of possessionof the flat was due to be delivered till the delivery of the possession.

5.1 The appellant herein – original complainant filed an executionand contempt petition before the State Commission. Vide order dated12.03.2021, the State Commission directed the decree holder – appellantGherein to place on record the details of the bank accounts or theproperties of the respondent herein which are to be attached for notimplementing the judgment and order dated 16.10.2020 passed by theState Commission. Thereafter, the respondent-builder preferred an appealbefore the National Commission. Vide order dated 30.03.2021, theNational Commission granted stay of the State Commission’s order,H

subject to deposit of the entire cost of the flat along with 9% interest onthe amount paid till date in the Registry of the State Commission or facethe execution action by the State Commission.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 30.03.2021passed by the National Commission, the respondent herein preferredwrit petition before the High Court by way of Writ CM(M) No. 374/2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia,that the National Commission ought not to have directed the builder todeposit the entire cost of the apartment along with the compensationawarded by the State Commission. The High Court, vide order dated25.05.2021, stayed the operation of the order of National Commissiondated 30.03.2021, subject to the builder depositing with the StateCommission 50% of the amount directed to be deposited by way ofinterest towards compensation within four weeks. A further order cameto be passed by the High Court on 17.08.2021 in Writ CM(M) No. 374/2021. Thereafter, the National Commission passed a final order in

First Appeal No. 250/2021 vide order dated 09.12.2021 andconfirmed the order passed by the State Commission dated 16.10.2020.

5.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final order dated09.12.2021 passed by the National Commission, confirming the orderdated 16.10.2020 passed by the State Commission, the respondent- builderagain approached the High Court by way of present writ petition beingCM(M) No. 1196/2021. By the impugned interim order dated 22.12.2021,till the next date of hearing, the High Court has stayed the operation offinal order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the National Commission in FirstAppeal No. 250/2021.

5.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interimorder passed by the High Court in Writ CM(M) No. 1196/2021, underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India, the original complainant haspreferred the present appeal.

6. At the time of admission hearing via Video Conferencing on21.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:

“The jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of theConstitution of India, against the order passed by the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is the mootquestion for consideration. As the matter is pending before theHigh Court and the next date of hearing is reported to be A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A29.03.2022, we request the High Court to decide the issue withrespect to the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, against the order passed by the NationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) first whichmay be decided on or before 18.04.2022. The decision of theHigh Court on the jurisdiction shall be placed before this Court onBor before the next date of hearing.

A

Put up on 21.04.2022.

It is agreed by learned counsel appearing for the respective partiesthat they shall not ask for any adjournment on any groundCwhatsoever before the High Court.”

7. That accordingly, by the impugned further order dated31.03.2022, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has decided onthe question of jurisdiction and it has held that against the order passedby the National Commission dated 09.12.2021 passed in First appeal No.D250/2021, impugned before it, a writ petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India would be maintainable. By way of amendment,which was allowed, the subsequent order dated 31.03.2022 is alsochallenged and is now the subject matter before this Court in the presentappeal.

8. Shri Sudeepta Kumar Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellant has vehemently submitted that against the order passedby the National Commission in First Appeal No. 250/2021, a writ petitionbefore the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiawould not be maintainable.

E

F8.1 It is submitted that as such against the order passed by theNational Commission, an appeal provided under Section 27A(1)(c) ofthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable. It is contendedthat without exhausting the said remedy, the High Court ought not tohave entertained the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India, which was against the order passed by the National CommissionGin First Appeal No. 250/2021.

8.2 In the alternative, it is submitted that assuming that the writpetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orderpassed by the National Commission, impugned before the High Court,was maintainable, in that case also, in the limited jurisdiction availableHunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to have stayed the order passed by the National Commission dated09.12.2021 passed in first appeal No. 250/2021.

9. Shri Karanjot Singh Mainee, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respondent has vehemently submitted that as the appeal beforethe National Commission was under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019Act, there is no further appeal provided against the order of the NationalCommission, as provided to the Supreme Court under section 67 of the2019 Act, against the order passed by the National Commission underSection 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. Hence, a writ petition under Article227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. In support of hissubmission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –original writ petitioner before the High Court has heavily relied upon thedecision of this Court in the case of Associated Cement CompaniesLimited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595 (paras 44 & 45), andthe subsequent decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumarv. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.

9.1 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed andheld that against the judgment and order passed by the NationalCommission, impugned before the High Court, a writ petition under Article227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

As observed hereinabove, the short question which is posed forthe consideration of this Court is, “whether, against the order passed bythe National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of the2019 Act, a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable?”

11. While answering the aforesaid issue/question, the relevantprovisions of the 2019 Act, which are relevant for our purpose, i.e.,Sections 58 and 67 are required to be referred to. Sections 58 & 67 ofthe 2019 Act read as under:

“58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.—(1) Subject tothe other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shallhave jurisdiction—

(a) to entertain—

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paidas consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:

Provided that where the Central Government deems itnecessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as itdeems fit;

(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value ofgoods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crorerupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;

(iv) appeals against the orders of the Central Authority; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in anyconsumer dispute which is pending before or has been decidedby any State Commission where it appears to the NationalCommission that such State Commission has exercised ajurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise ajurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdictionillegally or with material irregularity.

(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the NationalCommission may be exercised by Benches thereof and a Benchmay be constituted by the President with one or more membersas he may deem fit:

Provided that the senior-most member of the Bench shall presideover the Bench.

(3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point,the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority,if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, theyshall state the point or points on which they differ, and make areference to the President who shall either hear the point or pointshimself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points byone or more of the other members and such point or points shallbe decided according to the opinion of the majority of the memberswho have heard the case, including those who first heard it:

Provided that the President or the other member, as the casemay be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referredwithin a period of two months from the date of such reference.

xxx xxx xxx

67. Appeal against order of National Commission.—Anyperson, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commissionin exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) ofclause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58, may prefer an appealagainst such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirtydays from the date of the order:

Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal afterthe expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied thatthere was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required topay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commissionshall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that personhas deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner asmay be prescribed.”

It is not in dispute that in the present case, the appeal before theNational Commission was against the order passed by the StateCommission under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act. Therefore, againstthe order passed by the State Commission passed in a complaint inexercise of its powers conferred under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019Act, an appeal to the National Commission was maintainable, as providedunder Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. As per Section 67 of the2019 Act, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the NationalCommission 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 suchorder to the Supreme Court. Therefore, an appeal against the orderpassed by the National Commission to this Court would be maintainableonly in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exerciseof its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act. No further appeal to this Court is providedagainst the order passed by the National Commission in exercise of itspowers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv)of the 2019 Act. In that view of the matter, the remedy which may beavailable to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the NationalCommission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a)(iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdictionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Whether the National Commission can be said to be a tribunalfor the purpose of exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof India by the High Court is concerned, has been considered by aConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of Associate CementCompanies Limited (supra), which is required to be referred to. Inparagraphs 44 and 45, it is observed and held as under:

“44. An authority other than a court may be vested by statuteBwith judicial power in widely different circumstances, which itwould be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to defineexhaustively. The proper thing is to examine each case as it arises,and to ascertain whether the powers vested in the authority canbe truly described as judicial functions or judicial powers of theState. For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to say that anyCoutside authority empowered by the State to determine conclusivelythe rights of two or more contending parties with regard to anymatter in controversy between them satisfies the test of an authorityvested with the judicial powers of the State and may be regardedas a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136. Such a power ofDadjudication implies that the authority must act judicially and mustdetermine the dispute by ascertainment of the relevant facts onthe materials before it and by application of the relevant law tothose facts. This test of a tribunal is not meant to be exhaustive,and it may be that other bodies not satisfying this test are alsotribunals. In order to be a tribunal, it is essential that the power ofEadjudication must be derived from a statute or a statutory rule. Anauthority or body deriving its power of adjudication from anagreement of the parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunalacting under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,does not satisfy the test of a tribunal within Article 136. It mattersFlittle that such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of acourt. The Arbitration Act, 1940 vests an arbitrator with some ofthe trappings of a court, so also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947vests an authority acting under Section 10-A of the Act with manyof such trappings, and yet, such bodies and authorities are nottribunals.

G

45. The word “tribunal” finds place in Article 227 of the Constitutionalso, and I think that there also the word has the same meaning asin Article 136.”

Therefore, the National Commission can be said to be a ‘Tribunal’Hwhich is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter incontroversy between them. Therefore, as observed hereinabove in theaforesaid decision, it satisfies the test of an authority vested with thejudicial 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.Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers underArticle 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of the remedy whichmay be available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Courtunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is appropriate thataggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writpetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12.1 At this stage, another Constitution Bench decision of thisCourt in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) is required to be referredto. While dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles226/227 of the Constitution of India in respect of powers of judicial review,it is observed and held in para 90 as under:

“90. We may first address the issue of exclusion of the power ofjudicial review of the High Courts. We have already held that inrespect of the power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the HighCourts under Articles 226/227 cannot wholly be excluded. It hasbeen contended before us that the Tribunals should not be allowedto adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations isquestioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handlingmatters where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannotbring ourselves to agree to this proposition as that may result insplitting up proceedings and may cause avoidable delay. If such aview were to be adopted, it would be open for litigants to raiseconstitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, todirectly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdictionof the Tribunals. Moreover, even in these special branches of law,some areas do involve the consideration of constitutional questionson a regular basis; for instance, in service law matters, a largemajority of cases involve an interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and16 of the Constitution. To hold that the Tribunals have no powerto handle matters involving constitutional issues would not servethe purpose for which they were constituted. On the other hand,to hold that all such decisions will be subject to the jurisdiction ofthe High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aa Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorialjurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls will serve two purposes.While saving the power of judicial review of legislative actionvested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution,it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through theprocess of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will alsoBhave the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be ofuse to it in finally deciding the matter.”

That thereafter, it is observed and held that against the order passedby the tribunal, the aggrieved party may approach the concerned HighCourt under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.C

12.2 We may also refer to the decision of this Court in State ofKarnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-operativeSociety and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 412. In the said case, the contestbefore this Court was with regard to the Constitutional validity of theConsumer Protection Act, 1986. The validity of the Act was challenged,Dinter-alia, on the ground that the Parliament, was not empowered toestablish a hierarchy of Courts, which would operate parallelly with theCourts established under the Constitution. Upholding the validity of theAct, this Court observed that the very fact that a given party could alwaysapproach the High Court under Article 227, or the Supreme Court, asEthe case may be, against an order of a Commission constituted under theAct, was itself an adequate safeguard. The observations of this Court,to the effect that a party aggrieved by an order of a Commissionconstituted under the Act, could approach a High Court, or this Court,have been extracted as under:

F“52. The very fact that in a given case a party under the said Actmay approach upto this Court and or may otherwise take recourseto the remedy of judicial review, the interest of the parties must beheld to have been sufficient safeguard.

53. The provisions relating to power to approach appellate courtGby a party aggrieved by a decision of the forums State Commissionsas also the power of High Court and thus Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Article 32 of this Court apartfrom Section 23 of the Act provide for adequate safeguards.Furthermore, primarily the jurisdiction of the forum/commissionsis to grant damages. In the event, a complainant feels that he will H

have a better and effective remedy in a civil court as he mayhave to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file asuit in an appropriate civil court or may take recourse to someother remedies as provided for in other statutes.”

13. No so far as the remedy which may be available under Article136 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it cannot be disputed thatthe remedy by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 ofthe Constitution of India may be too expensive and as observed and heldby this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the said remedycan be said to be inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Therefore,when the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India beforethe concerned High Court is provided, in that case, it would be infurtherance of the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, maybe a complainant, to approach the concerned High Court at a lowercost, rather than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of theConstitution.

14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court hasnot committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the NationalCommission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view takenby the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without sayingthat while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of theConstitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction underArticle 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is requiredto be exercised.

15. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of theConstitution has been explained by this Court in the case of EstrallaRubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has beenconsistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Courtin the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCCOnline SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parametersto exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goeswithout saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, theHigh Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interimstay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution againstan order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always besubject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India.

A

B16. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove and subject to the observations made hereinabove, it cannot besaid that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiabefore the concerned High Court against the order passed by the NationalCommission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act wasnot maintainable. We are in complete agreement with the view taken byCthe High Court. As the matter on merits is yet to be considered by theHigh Court, we do not express anything on merits in favour of either ofthe parties. However, it is observed that while considering the questionof interim relief/stay, the High Court will bear in mind the observationsmade hereinabove.

D

17. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, in thefacts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

E

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H