B.V. Nagarathna JUDGMENT
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 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 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 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 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 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 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:
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 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 simple interest at the rate of 9% for the period from the date of possession of the flat