HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 64 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning the vires of Regulation 15 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") framed under the 2 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows : (3.1) The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum under the said Act. The foundation of the filing of such complaint was an allegation made against respondent No. 1 HDFC Bank Ltd. for indulging in unfair trade practice on the ground of failure to provide professional services to the appellant resulting in prepayment of loan to respondent No.1 seeking to levy a penalty for prepayment. (3.2) By an order dated August 2, 2007, the District Forum held in favour of the appellant. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the said order before the State Commission resulting in dismissal by an order dated November 19, 2007. A revision petition was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the National Commission") which set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission vide an order dated August 14, 2012 on the basis of the agreements inter se between the parties. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a review application before the National Commission resulting in dismissal by an order dated September 24, 2012. 3 (3.3) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, inter alia, praying that Regulation 15 of the Regulations be struck down on the ground that the said Regulation being ultra vires of the said Act, and further the review application filed by the appellant should be reheard by the National Commission granting an opportunity to present the case by making oral arguments. 4. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, drew our attention to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act which is to provide for better protection of interest of consumers and it is towards that objective that Section 22 of the said Act was amended by Act No.62 of 2002 with effect from March 15, 2003, conferring the power of review on the National Commission, which was not available in the original Act. According to him, Regulation 15 is ultra vires Section 22 of the said Act. It is also his contention that by introducing Regulation 15, the National Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction and the power vested in it under Section 30A of the said Act. 5. Section 22 of the said Act reads as follows : "Section 22. Power of and procedure applicable to the National Commission. (1) The provisions of sections 12, 13 4 and 14 and the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be considered necessary by the Commission, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the National Commission. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub section (1), the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record." It is necessary to quote Regulation 15 for our purpose which is as under: "Regulation 15. Review.(1) It shall set out clearly the grounds for review. (2) Unless otherwise ordered by the National Commission, an application for review shall be disposed of by circulation without oral arguments, as far as practicable between the same members who had delivered the order sought to be reviewed." 6. It is needless to mention here that the said Regulations were duly