Karnataka High Court
M/S. Harmony Architects vs B. S. Sudharshan on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB
WP No. 14238 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO. 14238 OF 2024 (GM-CON)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. HARMONY ARCHITECTS
NO.1173, 22A CROSS,
23RD MAIN,
BANASHANKARI, II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT.JAYASHRI KIREETI.
2. SRI. K. R. SRIKANTA PRASAD
S/O LATE SRI.K. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, SHRISHYLA,
8TH CROSS
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA G JAYANAGARA HBCS,
PADMANABHANAGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU- 560 070.
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA, V.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
B. S. SUDHARSHAN,
S/O C.S.SHASHIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.805,
8TH MAIN ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB
WP No. 14238 of 2024
HC-KAR
C BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
VIJAYANAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 017.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
(ADDITIONAL BENCH) IN APPEAL NO.322/2019 DATED
30/03/2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H, ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS
THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard Smt. Rakshitha V.N, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Sangamesh R.B,
learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB
HC-KAR
2. Under challenge in the instant petition is an
order passed by the State Commission in Appeal
No.322/2019 on 30.03.2024.
3. The contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioner are:
Firstly, with reference to the order sheet which is
filed as annexure - G to this petition that initially after
hearing the parties, the matter was reserved for orders on
28.10.2021. However, subsequently, the case was again
listed on 08.02.2022, 08.03.2022, 03.08.2022 and
11.10.2022 for further hearing. On 11.10.2022, the Court
directed posting of the matters for orders. Thereafter, the
order was passed on 30.03.2024 i.e. after a period of
nearly 1½ years. Learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
ANIL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR1 to contend that such an
inordinate delay in passing the order or judgment after
hearing the same has not being approved of by the
(2001) 7 SCC 318
NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid case of Anil Rai,
some guidelines were provided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court regarding pronouncement of the judgment, which
find place in paragraph No.10 of the judgment. It is
contended that the delay in passing the impugned order
by the State Commission are in the teeth of the guidelines
given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai's case.
Secondly, it is urged by the order impugned does not
take into account any of the arguments advanced by the
appellant/petitioner. It is stated that despite written
submissions being filed, none of the submissions were
considered.
4. We have perused the impugned order of
30.03.2024 in page No.59, which reads as under:
"The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
The impugned order dated 31.01.2019
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Mysuru in
CC.No.464/2009(R) is confirmed.
NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB
HC-KAR
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
to the concerned District Consumer Commission
to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as
well as concerned District Consumer
Commission".
5. The order impugned does not record any
reasons for passing of the order. Reasons are the heart
and soul of any judgment. No arguments have been
noticed. Under the circumstances, the order impugned
cannot be sustained. It is therefore, set aside. The matter
is remitted to the State Commission with a request that
the same may be reconsidered after hearing both the
parties and an appropriate decision may be taken as
expeditiously as possible.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent
has stated that a particular date may be fixed before the
State Commission for both the parties to appear since the
complaint was originally filed in the year 2009.
NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB
HC-KAR
7. Therefore, we direct the petitioners and
respondent to appear before the State Commission on
29.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. We would request the
Commission to fix a date in the matter so that hearing in
the matter may resume from the next date.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is
allowed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AG
