The right to appeal is a vested right which cannot be taken away, absent a statutory enactment to the effect.

JUDGMENT :

REV. PET 9/2021 & CM APPL. 9166/2021 in W.P.(C) 6769/2020

REV. PET 8/2021 & CM APPL. 9726/2021 in W.P.(C) 6770/2020

1. These Review Application(s) have been filed by the writ petitioner seeking review/recall of the Order dated 03.11.2020 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition(s) filed by the petitioner on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy in form of a statutory appeal, and granting leave to the petitioner to avail of the same.

2. Before considering the submissions made in support of the Review Applications filed by the petitioner, brief background and chronology leading to the present Review Applications need to be noticed.

3. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6769 of 2020 was filed praying for the following relief:

“(a) issue writ appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) and set aside the order dated 20.07.2020 passed in CC No 3814 of 2017 in “Sanjay Gupta Vs. Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr” and the connected matters adjudicated vide the common order and judgment; and

(b) As a consequence, pass appropriate direction(s)/order(s) to re-hear the matters denovo for proper and just adjudication of the matters, with the bench comprising of a judicial member and;”

4. Similarly, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6770 of 2020 prayed for the following relief:

“(a) issue writ appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) and set aside the order dated 20.07.2020 passed in CC No 2009 of 2017 in “Manoj Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr” and the connected matters adjudicated vide the common order and judgment; and

(b) As a consequence, pass appropriate direction(s)/order(s) to re-hear the matters de-novo for proper and just adjudication of the matters, with the bench comprising of a judicial member and;”

5. The petitioner was primarily aggrieved of the direction issued by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned NCDRC’) directing refund of the amount deposited by the respondents/consumers/allottees of the project “Greenopolis” situated in Sector 89, Gurgaon being developed by the petitioner, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% / 9% per annum. Insofar as the Order in Consumer Case No. 2009 of 2017, titled Manoj Aggarwal & Anr. v. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which is challenged in W.P.(C) 6770 of 2020, is concerned, the direction of the learned NCDRC was to handover the physical possession of the flat complete in all respects to the allottee till 30.09.2020 failing which the petitioner shall refund the amount deposited by the allottee alongwith interest.

6. The petitioner self-summarises the grounds on which the writ petition was premised in paragraph 14 of Review Application, as under:

“14. The Applicant has filed the said Writ Petition against the impugned judgment on several grounds, namely:

(i) That a Technical Member has passed the order, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of a Judicial Member;

(ii) That the Ld. NCDRC had acted in contravention of the principle of comity of Tribunals as it ignored the specific and unambiguous request of the Ld. HRERA to not pass any order of refund as the same would put the entire project in jeopardy;

(iii) That there was a delay in the passing of the judgment as the same was reserved for over ten months and;

(iv) That the impugned judgment had been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice.”

7. Clearly, therefore, in the Writ Petition no ground was raised to the effect that with the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2019’) and the simultaneous repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1986’), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCDRC’) constituted under the Act of 1986 ceased to exist with effect from 20.07.2020 and therefore, the impugned order(s) passed on 20.07.2020 were by an Authority which had ceased to exist.

8. As noted herein