IBRAT FAIZANversusOMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED

632                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 632              [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A                               IBRAT FAIZAN
                                       v.
                 OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED
                        (Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022)
B                                MAY 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 Dispute
      Redressal Commission in an appeal u/s. 58(1)(a)(iii) – Held: Is
C
      maintainable – 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 – It satisfies the test of an authority
      vested with the judicial powers of the State and thus, regarded as a
D     ‘tribunal’ within the meaning of Art. 227 and/or 136 – Also, in a
      given case, this Court may not exercise its powers u/Art. 136, in
      view of the remedy available to the aggrieved party before the
      concerned High Court u/Art 227, as it is appropriate that aggrieved
      party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition
      u/Art. 227 – Also, remedy by way of special leave u/Art. 136 may be
E
      too expensive and can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real
      and effective – Thus, the High Court did not commit any error in
      entertaining the writ petition u/Art. 227 against the order passed by
      National 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 the
      National Commission was against the order passed by the State
      Commission under Section 47(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection
      Act, 2019. Therefore, against the order passed by the State
G     Commission passed in a complaint in exercise of its powers
      conferred under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act, an appeal to
      the National Commission was maintainable, as provided under
      Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. As per Section 67 of the
      2019 Act, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National
H     Commission of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of
                                     632
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                      633


clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58, may prefer an appeal     A
against such order to the Supreme Court. Therefore, an appeal
against the order passed by the National Commission to this
Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by
the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred
under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019
                                                                      B
Act. No further appeal to this Court is provided against the order
passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers
conferred 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 be
available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the
National Commission in an appeal u/s.58(1)(a)(iii) or s. 58(1)(a)     C
(iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having
jurisdiction 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 conclusively
the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any       D
matter in controversy between them. Therefore, 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. Also, in a
given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article
136 , in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved   E
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. [Para 12][642-H;
643-A-C]                                                              F
      Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P. N. Sharma
      AIR 1965 SC 1595 : [1965] SCR 366 – followed.
      1.3 The remedy by way of an appeal by special leave under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India may be too expensive.
The said remedy can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real      G
and effective. Therefore, when the remedy under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court is
provided, in that case, it would be in furtherance of the right of
access to justice of the aggrieved party, may be a complainant, to
approach the concerned High Court at a lower cost, rather than a      H
634            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
      [Para 13][645-B-D]
            L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC
            261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – followed.
            1.4 In the instant case, the High Court has not committed
B     any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 against
      the order passed by the National Commission which has been
      passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the 2019 Act.
      The view taken by the High Court is upheld. However, at the
      same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers
C     under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
      subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and
      the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction u/Art.227 within
      the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be
      exercised. [Para 14][645-D-F]

D           1.5 While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the
      Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to
      exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even
      while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition
      under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
      has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence
E     under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting
      any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the
      Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission,
      the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be
      exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para
F     15][645-G-H; 646-A-B]
            1.6 It cannot be said that a writ petition under Article 227
      of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court
      against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal
      under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was not maintainable.
G     The view taken by the High Court is upheld. [Para 16][646-B-C]
            State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building
            Co-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;
H
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                              635


      Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) SCC                          A
      Online SC 29 - referred to.
                         Case Law Reference
[1965] SCR 366                        followed             Para 12
[1997] 2 SCR 1186                     followed             Para 12.1, 13      B
[2003] 1 SCR 397                      referred to          Para 12.2
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 68                referred to          Para 14.1
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3072
of 2022.
                                                                              C
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2021 of the High Court
of 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 interim
order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 22.12.2021         E
passed in CM(M) No. 1196/2021, by which the learned Single Judge of
the High Court has stayed order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short,
National Commission’), while hearing a writ petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, in which the respondent herein              F
challenged the judgment and order passed by the National Commission
in First Appeal No. 250/2021, the original respondent before the High
Court has preferred the present appeal.
        2. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court dated
21.03.2022 in the special leave petition, by a detailed order dated
                                                                              G
31.03.2022, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has answered
the question of jurisdiction and has held that against the order passed by
the National Commission dated 9.12.2021 in First appeal No. 250/2021,
a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. By way of Interlocutory Application No. 58657/2022, the appellant
                                                                              H
636              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     herein has sought permission to amend the special leave petition, which
      is allowed.
             3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the
      High Court holding that against the order passed by the National
      Commission passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the
B     Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2019
      Act’), a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
      would be maintainable, the original respondent before the High Court
      has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
            4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the
C     Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National
      Commission, in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act, is
      the moot question for consideration before this Court.
               5. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
      under:
D            The appellant herein booked a flat in the project floated by the
      respondent herein. According to the appellant herein, 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 (for short, ‘State Commission’) on 10.08.2013
E     on the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. By
      order dated 16.10.2020, the State Commission allowed the said complaint
      directing the respondent herein to handover possession of the flat booked
      by the appellant subject to their meeting the requirements. The State
      Commission also directed the respondent herein to pay to the complainant
      – appellant herein compensation for the delayed period in the form of
F     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.
             5.1 The appellant herein – original complainant filed an execution
      and contempt petition before the State Commission. Vide order dated
      12.03.2021, the State Commission directed the decree holder – appellant
G     herein to place on record the details of the bank accounts or the
      properties of the respondent herein which are to be attached for not
      implementing the judgment and order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the
      State Commission. Thereafter, the respondent-builder preferred an appeal
      before the National Commission. Vide order dated 30.03.2021, the
      National Commission granted stay of the State Commission’s order,
H
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                              637
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

subject to deposit of the entire cost of the flat along with 9% interest on   A
the amount paid till date in the Registry of the State Commission or face
the execution action by the State Commission.
       Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 30.03.2021
passed by the National Commission, the respondent herein preferred
writ petition before the High Court by way of Writ CM(M) No. 374/             B
2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia,
that the National Commission ought not to have directed the builder to
deposit the entire cost of the apartment along with the compensation
awarded by the State Commission. The High Court, vide order dated
25.05.2021, stayed the operation of the order of National Commission
dated 30.03.2021, subject to the builder depositing with the State            C
Commission 50% of the amount directed to be deposited by way of
interest towards compensation within four weeks. A further order came
to 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 and               D
confirmed the order passed by the State Commission dated 16.10.2020.
        5.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final order dated
09.12.2021 passed by the National Commission, confirming the order
dated 16.10.2020 passed by the State Commission, the respondent- builder
again approached the High Court by way of present writ petition being         E
CM(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 of
final order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the National Commission in First
Appeal No. 250/2021.
      5.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim        F
order passed by the High Court in Writ CM(M) No. 1196/2021, under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original complainant has
preferred the present appeal.
      6. At the time of admission hearing via Video Conferencing on
21.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:                            G
      “The jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of the
      Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National
      Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is the moot
      question for consideration. As the matter is pending before the
      High Court and the next date of hearing is reported to be               H
638            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A           29.03.2022, we request the High Court to decide the issue with
            respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of
            the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National
            Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) first which
            may be decided on or before 18.04.2022. The decision of the
            High Court on the jurisdiction shall be placed before this Court on
B
            or before the next date of hearing.
            Put up on 21.04.2022.
            It is agreed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties
            that they shall not ask for any adjournment on any ground
C           whatsoever before the High Court.”
             7. That accordingly, by the impugned further order dated
      31.03.2022, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has decided on
      the question of jurisdiction and it has held that against the order passed
      by the National Commission dated 09.12.2021 passed in First appeal No.
D     250/2021, impugned before it, a writ petition under Article 227 of the
      Constitution of India would be maintainable. By way of amendment,
      which was allowed, the subsequent order dated 31.03.2022 is also
      challenged and is now the subject matter before this Court in the present
      appeal.

E            8. Shri Sudeepta Kumar Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
      of the appellant has vehemently submitted that against the order passed
      by the National Commission in First Appeal No. 250/2021, a writ petition
      before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
      would not be maintainable.

F            8.1 It is submitted that as such against the order passed by the
      National Commission, an appeal provided under Section 27A(1)(c) of
      the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable. It is contended
      that without exhausting the said remedy, the High Court ought not to
      have entertained the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
      of India, which was against the order passed by the National Commission
G     in First Appeal No. 250/2021.
             8.2 In the alternative, it is submitted that assuming that the writ
      petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order
      passed by the National Commission, impugned before the High Court,
      was maintainable, in that case also, in the limited jurisdiction available
H     under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                              639
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

to have stayed the order passed by the National Commission dated              A
09.12.2021 passed in first appeal No. 250/2021.
       9. Shri Karanjot Singh Mainee, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent has vehemently submitted that as the appeal before
the National Commission was under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019
Act, there is no further appeal provided against the order of the National    B
Commission, as provided to the Supreme Court under section 67 of the
2019 Act, against the order passed by the National Commission under
Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. Hence, a writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable. In support of his
submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –
original writ petitioner before the High Court has heavily relied upon the    C
decision of this Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies
Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595 (paras 44 & 45), and
the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar
v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
      9.1 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid         D
decisions, it is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed and
held that against the judgment and order passed by the National
Commission, impugned before the High Court, a writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.
       10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at        E
length.
      As observed hereinabove, the short question which is posed for
the consideration of this Court is, “whether, against the order passed by
the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of the
2019 Act, a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article       F
227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable?”
      11. While answering the aforesaid issue/question, the relevant
provisions 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 of
the 2019 Act read as under:                                                   G
      “58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.—(1) Subject to
      the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall
      have jurisdiction—
      (a) to entertain—
                                                                              H
640      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A        (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid
         as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:
            Provided that where the Central Government deems it
            necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it
            deems fit;
B        (ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of
         goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore
         rupees;
         (iii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;
         (iv) appeals against the orders of the Central Authority; and
C
       (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any
       consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided
       by any State Commission where it appears to the National
       Commission that such State Commission has exercised a
       jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a
D      jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
       illegally or with material irregularity.
      (2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National
      Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof and a Bench
      may be constituted by the President with one or more members
E     as he may deem fit:
         Provided that the senior-most member of the Bench shall preside
         over 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,
F     if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they
      shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a
      reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points
      himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by
      one or more of the other members and such point or points shall
G     be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members
      who have heard the case, including those who first heard it:
         Provided that the President or the other member, as the case
         may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred
         within a period of two months from the date of such reference.
H                          xxx     xxx xxx
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                                 641
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      67. Appeal against order of National Commission.—Any                       A
      person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission
      in exercise 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 such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty
      days from the date of the order:
                                                                                 B
          Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after
          the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that
          there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
          Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required to
          pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission         C
          shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person
          has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as
          may be prescribed.”
       It is not in dispute that in the present case, the appeal before the
National Commission was against the order passed by the State                    D
Commission under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019 Act. Therefore, against
the order passed by the State Commission passed in a complaint in
exercise of its powers conferred under Section 47(1)(a) of the 2019
Act, an appeal to the National Commission was maintainable, as provided
under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. As per Section 67 of the
2019 Act, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National                 E
Commission 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 such
order to the Supreme Court. Therefore, an appeal against the order
passed by the National Commission to this Court would be maintainable
only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exercise          F
of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section
58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act. No further appeal to this Court is provided
against the order passed by the National Commission in exercise of its
powers 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 be
available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National        G
Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a)
(iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
       12. Whether the National Commission can be said to be a tribunal
for the purpose of exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution      H
642            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     of India by the High Court is concerned, has been considered by a
      Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Associate Cement
      Companies Limited (supra), which is required to be referred to. In
      paragraphs 44 and 45, it is observed and held as under:
            “44. An authority other than a court may be vested by statute
B           with judicial power in widely different circumstances, which it
            would be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define
            exhaustively. The proper thing is to examine each case as it arises,
            and to ascertain whether the powers vested in the authority can
            be truly described as judicial functions or judicial powers of the
            State. For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to say that any
C           outside authority empowered by the State to determine conclusively
            the rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any
            matter in controversy between them satisfies the test of an authority
            vested with the judicial powers of the State and may be regarded
            as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136. Such a power of
D           adjudication implies that the authority must act judicially and must
            determine the dispute by ascertainment of the relevant facts on
            the materials before it and by application of the relevant law to
            those facts. This test of a tribunal is not meant to be exhaustive,
            and it may be that other bodies not satisfying this test are also
            tribunals. In order to be a tribunal, it is essential that the power of
E           adjudication must be derived from a statute or a statutory rule. An
            authority or body deriving its power of adjudication from an
            agreement of the parties, such as a private arbitrator or a tribunal
            acting under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
            does not satisfy the test of a tribunal within Article 136. It matters
F           little that such a body or authority is vested with the trappings of a
            court. The Arbitration Act, 1940 vests an arbitrator with some of
            the trappings of a court, so also the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
            vests an authority acting under Section 10-A of the Act with many
            of such trappings, and yet, such bodies and authorities are not
            tribunals.
G
            45. The word “tribunal” finds place in Article 227 of the Constitution
            also, and I think that there also the word has the same meaning as
            in Article 136.”
           Therefore, the National Commission can be said to be a ‘Tribunal’
H     which is vested by Statute the powers to determine conclusively the
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                                643
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

rights of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in           A
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.
Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under
                                                                                B
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.
        12.1 At this stage, another Constitution Bench decision of this         C
Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) is required to be referred
to. While dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles
226/227 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 of          D
      judicial review of the High Courts. We have already held that in
      respect of the power of judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High
      Courts under Articles 226/227 cannot wholly be excluded. It has
      been contended before us that the Tribunals should not be allowed
      to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations is             E
      questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling
      matters where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannot
      bring ourselves to agree to this proposition as that may result in
      splitting up proceedings and may cause avoidable delay. If such a
      view were to be adopted, it would be open for litigants to raise
      constitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, to           F
      directly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdiction
      of the Tribunals. Moreover, even in these special branches of law,
      some areas do involve the consideration of constitutional questions
      on a regular basis; for instance, in service law matters, a large
      majority of cases involve an interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and        G
      16 of the Constitution. To hold that the Tribunals have no power
      to handle matters involving constitutional issues would not serve
      the purpose for which they were constituted. On the other hand,
      to hold that all such decisions will be subject to the jurisdiction of
      the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before
                                                                                H
644             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A           a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial
            jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls will serve two purposes.
            While saving the power of judicial review of legislative action
            vested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution,
            it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the
            process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also
B
            have the benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of
            use to it in finally deciding the matter.”
            That thereafter, it is observed and held that against the order passed
      by the tribunal, the aggrieved party may approach the concerned High
      Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
C
             12.2 We may also refer to the decision of this Court in State of
      Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-operative
      Society and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 412. In the said case, the contest
      before this Court was with regard to the Constitutional validity of the
      Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The validity of the Act was challenged,
D     inter-alia, on the ground that the Parliament, was not empowered to
      establish a hierarchy of Courts, which would operate parallelly with the
      Courts established under the Constitution. Upholding the validity of the
      Act, this Court observed that the very fact that a given party could always
      approach the High Court under Article 227, or the Supreme Court, as
E     the case may be, against an order of a Commission constituted under the
      Act, was itself an adequate safeguard. The observations of this Court,
      to the effect that a party aggrieved by an order of a Commission
      constituted 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 Act
            may approach upto this Court and or may otherwise take recourse
            to the remedy of judicial review, the interest of the parties must be
            held to have been sufficient safeguard.
            53. The provisions relating to power to approach appellate court
G           by a party aggrieved by a decision of the forums State Commissions
            as also the power of High Court and thus Court under Article 226/
            227 of the Constitution of India and Article 32 of this Court apart
            from Section 23 of the Act provide for adequate safeguards.
            Furthermore, primarily the jurisdiction of the forum/commissions
            is to grant damages. In the event, a complainant feels that he will
H
 IBRAT FAIZAN v. OMAXE BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED                                645
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      have a better and effective remedy in a civil court as he may             A
      have to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file a
      suit in an appropriate civil court or may take recourse to some
      other remedies as provided for in other statutes.”
       13. No so far as the remedy which may be available under Article
136 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it cannot be disputed that       B
the remedy by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India may be too expensive and as observed and held
by this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the said remedy
can be said to be inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Therefore,
when the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before
the concerned High Court is provided, in that case, it would be in              C
furtherance of the right of access to justice of the aggrieved party, may
be a complainant, to approach the concerned High Court at a lower
cost, rather than a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
        14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has       D
not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National
Commission 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 taken
by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying            E
that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the
Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under
Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required
to be exercised.
                                                                                F
        15. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the
Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla
Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been
consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court
in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC
Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article             G
227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters
to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes
without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/
relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence      H
646              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 4 S.C.R.


A     under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim
      stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against
      an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be
      subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of
      the Constitution of India.
B            16. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
      above and subject to the observations made hereinabove, it cannot be
      said that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
      before the concerned High Court against the order passed by the National
      Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act was
      not maintainable. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
C     the High Court. As the matter on merits is yet to be considered by the
      High Court, we do not express anything on merits in favour of either of
      the parties. However, it is observed that while considering the question
      of interim relief/stay, the High Court will bear in mind the observations
      made hereinabove.
D            17. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, in the
      facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

      Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)
E




F




G




H