The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the powers of the Consumer Protection authorities and the availability of statutory appellate remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have assailed an order dated July 31, 2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in interlocutory application No. IA/614/2019 in execution application no. EA/225/2018.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He has submitted that, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can invoke provisions of sections 25 and 27 of the Act of 1986 to execute an order passed by the commission under the Act of 1986 in the manner and to the extent provided therein. He has relied upon section 25 of the Act of 1986 and submitted that, it provides for enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. Section 25 of the Act of 1986 must be read with section 27 thereof. Referring to such sections of the Act of 1986, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission can pass an order as contemplated under section 25 and 27 thereof. Any other order passed by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission purporting to be in execution of its order, are nullity. In the facts of the present case, he has submitted that, the petitioners bought flats at the building for valuable consideration. Apparently, there were disputes and differences between the owner of the land and the developer. The owners of the land initiated proceedings under the Act of 1986. The petitioners as buyers of the flats were not parties in such proceedings. Such proceedings being Complaint Case No. CC/31/2015 was disposed of by an order dated July 18, 2018. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by its order dated July 18, 2018 directed the respondent No. 5 to make over 50% of the total constructed building as per deed of agreement dated November 8, 2007 to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 after obtaining completion certificate within 90 days from the date of the order. The respondent No.5 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as compensation from the month of October 2009. The respondent No. 5 was further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as costs of litigation to the respondent Nos.3 and 4. He has submitted that, the respondent No. 5 is presently in a correctional home. Apparently, the respondent No.5 failed to comply with the order dated July 18, 2018 passed in CC/31/2015. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 applied for execution of such order being execution application No. EA/225/2018 in which, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 applied by way of an interim application being IA/614/2019 which was allowed by the impugned order dated July 31, 2019 by directing the Officer in Charge, Jadavpur Police Station to assist the learned Advocate Commissioner in handing over possession of the owners allocated portion as per deed of agreement dated November 8, 2007 to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, no appeal lies against the impugned order at the behest of the petitioners. He has referred to and relied upon Section 27A of the Act of 1986 in support of his contentions. He has relied upon 2015 5 SCC 423 (Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.) and 2018 3 Calcutta High Court Notes (Calcutta) 248 (Haji Hanif Hakam v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata) in support of his contentions that, a writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by a tribunal which has acted without jurisdiction.

4. Relying upon 2011 8 SCC 539 (Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo) and 2011 9 SCC 541 (Rajeev Hitendra Patham & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the Consumer Forum, District Forum and the State Commission acting under the Act of