Consumer Protection Act | Delhi HC Issues Notice In Challenge To NCDRC Order Dismissing Execution Proceedings Against RWA
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a petition challenging an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which dismissed execution proceedings against a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) and its office bearers on the ground that they were not parties to the original consumer complaint.Justice Girish Kathpalia noted the challenge to the NCDRC's order...
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a petition challenging an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which dismissed execution proceedings against a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) and its office bearers on the ground that they were not parties to the original consumer complaint.
Justice Girish Kathpalia noted the challenge to the NCDRC's order dated 15.09.2025 and, taking note of the submissions on maintainability in view of Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, issued notice to the respondents.
Facts
The petitioner, Purab Premium Apartment Allottees Association, represents allottees of a housing project developed by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
In earlier consumer complaints decided by the NCDRC, directions were issued against GMADA holding that the offer of possession was illegal as it was made without a valid Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate. Subsequently, the NCDRC also issued a clarification regarding the commencement and levy of maintenance charges.
Despite these directions, GMADA allegedly handed over the maintenance of the project to a Residents Welfare Association (Respondent No.1), which began issuing coercive demands for payment of maintenance charges and threatened disconnection of essential services. Alleging non-compliance with the NCDRC's orders, the petitioner filed execution proceedings (EA/456/2024) under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking restraint against such actions.
However, by order dated 15 September 2025, the NCDRC dismissed the execution petition insofar as it was directed against Respondents 1 to 3, holding that there were no directions against them in the original judgment and that execution proceedings were not maintainable against persons who were not parties to the main consumer complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court noted that the impugned order dismissed the execution proceedings on the ground that the RWA and its office bearers were not parties to the original consumer complaint and that no specific directions had been issued against them in the decree sought to be executed.
On the question of maintainability in view of Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order was not passed in the original jurisdiction exercised by the NCDRC while deciding the consumer complaint. Reliance was placed on paragraph 28 of the Supreme Court's decision in Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1790, to submit that the present petition would be maintainable.
Taking note of these submissions, the Court ordered:
"Subject to petitioner taking steps within one week, notice through all modes be issued to the respondents, returnable on 06.04.2026 before Registrar."
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Sethi and Mr. Vikash Kumar,
Case Title: Purab Premium Apartment Allottees Association Vs. Residents Welfare Association, Purab Premium Apartments & Ors.
Case Number: CM(M) 2481/2025