A review order adversely affecting a party cannot be passed without notice and hearing.

The respondents, who had booked a flat developed by the petitioners, obtained a partly favourable order from the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission.

On appeal, the NCDRC modified that order, including recording that possession had been delivered on 4 March 2021.

On the respondents’ review application, the NCDRC directed the petitioners to hand over possession and pay delay compensation until delivery, without first giving them notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The NCDRC later dismissed the petitioners’ application to modify the review order.

The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the NCDRC could pass an adverse order in review without giving the petitioners notice and an effective opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the merits of the NCDRC’s review decision and its subsequent refusal to modify that decision required determination by the High Court.

Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 empowers the National Commission to review its orders where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, on its own motion or on an application by a party.

The proviso to Order XLVII Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that a review application cannot be granted without previous notice to the opposite party.

The principles of natural justice and judicial process require that a party adversely affected by an order in review receive an effective opportunity of hearing before that order is made.

The review order materially altered the relief granted in the NCDRC’s original appellate order: the original order treated possession as delivered on 4 March 2021 and did not direct its delivery, whereas the review order required the petitioners to hand over possession and pay compensation until delivery.

The petitioners had received no notice of the review application and were not heard before the adverse order was made.

The High Court held that this denied them the required opportunity of hearing and was sufficient to invalidate the review order.

It did not determine the merits of the review or the petitioners’ compliance with the earlier directions.

All merits were left open, and no order as to costs was made.