GREENPOLIS WELFARE ASSOCIATION  Vs M/S. ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 1 of 8

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on: 28th January, 2021
+ CM(M) 410/2020
GREENPOLIS WELFARE ASSOCIATION … Petitioner
versus
M/S. ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE
LIMITED & ANR. ….. Respondents
+ CM(M) 411/2020
GREENPOLIS WELFARE ASSOCIATION … Petitioner
versus
M/S. ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE
LIMITED & ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Piyush Singh with Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar with Sumedha Dang, Advocates for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Dhananjai Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM: –
HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction to the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) to expeditiously dispose of the complaints,
filed by the petitioner, which have been pending for over two years.
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 2 of 8

2. It is contended that repeated adjournments have been given by
the National Commission to the respondents to file written
statements/written submissions, which has led to delay in disposal of
the petitions.
3. Petitioner has prayed that direction be issued to the National
Commission for early time bound disposal of the complaints and not
to grant any further adjournment at the request of either of the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has raise d a
preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petitions.
5. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that as the subject petitions seek directions with regard to proceedings emanating from original complaints filed before the
National Commission, and all orders of the National Commission
passed in exercise of its original jurisdiction would be appealable to the Supreme Court of India under Section 23 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be
maintainable before the High Court. Further, it is contented that the
orders of the National Commission are mere procedural orders same
do not warrant any interference of this court.
6. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether th is
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 the Constitution
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 3 of 8

of India should interfere in a matter of the present nature.
7. Section 23 of the Act lays down as under:
“23. Appeal. —Any person, aggrieved by an order made
by the National Commission in exercise of its powers
conferred by sub -clause (i) of clause (a) of section 21,
may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:
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 b y a person who is
required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the
National Commission shall be entertained by the
Supreme Court unless that person has deposited in the
prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or
rupees fifty thousand, whiche ver is less. ”

8. Section 21(a)(i) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the National
Commission to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or
services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore.
9. Section 21(a)(i) of the Act confers orig inal jurisdiction on the
National Commission in addition to the appellate jurisdiction
exercise d by it under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act and the revisional
jurisdiction exercised by it under Section 21(b) of the Act.
10. Section 23 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Supreme
Court from an order made by the National Commission in exercise of
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 4 of 8

its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i) of the Act.
11. It is only in cases where the National Commission passes an
order in ex ercise of its original jurisdiction that an appeal lies to the
Supreme Court and not from an order passed in its appellate or
revisional jurisdiction.
12. Section 23 of the Act does not qualify as to the nature of order
against which an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court. So a ppeal to
the Supreme Court, under Section 23 of the Act, would lie not only
against a final order of the National Commission but also against an
interim order passed by the National Commission in exercise of its
original jurisdiction.
13. The Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 has held as under:
“6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where
the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited
grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by
filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited
grounds available for challenging the award given by the
Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to
file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the
appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an
insurer to take any plea other than those provided under
Section 149(2) of the Act (see National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi [(2002) 7 SCC 456 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 1788] ). This being the legal position, the petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 5 of 8

was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file
an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the
High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an
appeal has not been provided for against the order and
judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the
aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High
Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court
under Section 115 CPC has been expressly barred by a
State enactment, only in such case a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under
Article 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of
illustration, where a trial court in a civil su it refused to
grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal
to grant injunction has been rejected, and a State
enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under
Section 115 CPC, in such a situation a writ petition
under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Thus, where the State Legislature has
barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the
High Court under Section 115 CPC, no petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution would lie for the reason
that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not
enough to attract jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High
Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined
only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has
proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an
error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an
error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under
Article 227 of the Constitution, th e High Court does not
act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not
permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 6 of 8

evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal
purports to ha ve passed the order or to correct errors of
law in the decision.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that
since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before
the High Court, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution and for that reason, the judgment and order
under challenge deserves to be set aside. …………”

14. The Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd (supra) has held that where a statutory right to file an appeal has
been provided for, it is not open to the High Court t o entertain a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It has held that the
supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article
227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior
court or tribunal has proceeded withi n its parameters and not to
correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an
error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of
the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or
the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court, on a petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, to review or reweigh the
evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have
passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.
15. In the present case, the Petitioner has filed these petitions
merely on the ground that the Complaints which are at the stage of
final hearing have not been finally heard and ha ve been adjourned 2 –
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 7 of 8

3 times.
16. Perusal of the record shows that the proceedings were
adjourned on one occasion because the presiding member was not
present and then because parties had not filed their written
submission. It is a lso noticed that the Petitioner /Complainant had also
filed applications seeking to challenge the grant of an opportunity to
the respondent to file written submission, which took a date in
disposal.
17. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by the
National Commission, then the remedy of the petitioner is to file an
appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 21 (a) (1) of the Act.
18. In a case where there is a statu tory remedy of an appeal
provided, the High Court would be reluctant to exercise its powers
under Article 227 of the Constitu tion, even if there is an error
apparent on the face of the record.
19. High Court would exercise po wers under Article 227 of the
Constitution only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has
proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law .
20. In the present case, petitioner has not even been able to point
out to any error apparent on the face of the record. T he grievance of
the petitioner is only with regard to grant of an adjournment. Grant of
2021:DHC:317

CM (M) 410 & 411 of 2020 Page 8 of 8

an adjournment, in the facts of a particular case, is within the domain
of the court and is purely administrative in nature. High Court would
be reluctant to interfere in a mere grant of an adjournment unless it is
shown that the adjournment gravely prejudice s the petitioner .
21. Since petitioner has not even been able to make out a case for
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution , so the
question as to whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitu tion
is maintainable before the High Court or not is left open.
22. There is no merit in the petitions. They are accordingly
dismissed.
23. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels for the parties through email by
the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 28, 2021/HJ
2021:DHC:317