May 7, 2019:
Supreme Court has set aside an order of Consumer Commission saying that the same was unreasoned one as the order simply indicated that the documents asked for were not necessary.
A bench of Justice Lalit and Justice Malhotra has passed the order in the case titled as Jiten K. Ajmera vs M/s Tejas Cooperative Housing Society on 06.05.2019.
We had earlier brought some stories about unreasoned orders. The saga continues. We today bring another story of unreasoned orders.
In an appeal before State Consumer Commission, the developers filed an Application under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC for leading additional evidence and requested for production of two documents which came in existence after filing of appeal. State Commission denied the request and National Commission dismissed the revision.
The National Commission held that it is an admitted fact that the additional documents sought to be produced by the Appellants did not exist while the matter was before the District Forum. The National Commission merely held that the additional information sought to be introduced does not satisfy the preconditions under Section 107(1) (d) r.w. Rule 27 of Order XLI, CPC, and since the State Commission had held that the documents were not necessary, it did not call for any interference.
The matter then went to the Supreme Court and it observed "These documents are of relevance to establish that the Appellants are not in a position to obtain the Occupancy Certificate from the MCGM until the unauthorized structures, which are in violation of the approved plans, are removed. In the absence of these documents, the Appellants would not be in a position to substantiate their case that they are unable to obtain the Occupancy Certificate, and comply with the directions issued by the District Forum".
The Supreme Court then commented "The State Commission was in error by rejecting the Application filed by the Appellants under Order XLI Rule 27, CPC by merely stating that the documents are “not necessary”. The said Order is an unreasoned one. The State Commission must have taken a holistic view of the matter".
Then it set aside the orders as "In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Interim Order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the State Commission is hereby set aside, as also the Impugned Order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the National Commission".
Read the order here:
Picture Source :