V.V.S. Rao, J.

In this writ petition the order dated 14.10.2011 in Revision Petition No.478 of 2007 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereafter, the National Commission) is assailed as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, with a further prayer to set aside the same.

The brief fact of the matter to the extent necessary for in limine disposal of the writ petition is as follows.

The petitioner is Managing Partner of M/s. Rajyalakshmi Constructions, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. The said firm constructed ‘Rajyalakshmi Apartments’ in Habsiguda, Hyderabad in 1996. The second respondent and his wife purchased plot No.208. The same was alienated under a sale deed dated 17.8.1996. Clause 4 thereof provided that the purchaser shall have the right to enjoy and use along with other co-owners the open land, roadways, approaches and all other means of ingress and egress and shall have all the rights, title and interest in any construction, building, floor area, flat or garage or any portion of the schedule property. Obviously the second respondent and others occupied their respective flats and were making use of the common/parking area in the apartment for parking/other purposes. The second respondent was using the area for parking till July, 2003. At that juncture ‘Rajyalakshmi Apartment Owners Association’ (a registered association, in which the second respondent was a member) allotted specially earmarked parking slots to 23 persons. In the process the second respondent who was statedly using the parking area from 1996 to July, 2003 was forced to have a restricted access to the parking area. He, therefore, approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy District (the District Forum) seeking mainly a declaration that the car parking area belongs to all owners and every flat owner has a right to park his vehicle in the parking area, and consequential directions as well as compensation for mental agony suffered by him. The complaint was dismissed on 02.2.2006 by the District Forum as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) being F.A.No.216 of 2006 before the learned Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (the State Commission). By order dated 05.1.2007, the State Commission allowed the appeal directing the petitioner herein to provide car parking space and also gave liberty to the second respondent to approach the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for demolition of any illegal construction made by the builder. The plea that remedy was barred by limitation was negatived by the State Commission on the holding that the second respondent has had continuous cause of action. The petitioner then unsuccessfully assailed the order of the State Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act before the National Commission.

At the stage of admission itself, the second respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition on the merits as well as on the question of maintainability. As the factual background is not seriously in issue, it is not necessary to sum up the contents of the counter affidavit nor reiterate the case of the second respondent who set in motion the redressal procedure under the Act.

The Counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. First he would contend that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not barred against the order of the National Commission. He made an attempt to draw support from L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India ((1997) 3 SCC 261 : AIR 1997 SC 1125). Secondly he would submit that the claim made by the second respondent is barred by limitation. He would rely on Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co., v National Insurance Co., ((2009) 7 SCC 768). The Counsel for the second respondent placing reliance on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Nivedita Sharma v Cellul