Orissa High Court
Debadatta Mohapatra & Ors vs The State Consumer Disputes .... ... on 1 July, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36323 of 2023
Debadatta Mohapatra & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Adv.
-versus-
The State Consumer Disputes .... Opposite Parties
Redressal Commission
(SCDRC), Cuttack & Ors.
Mr. Ch. S. Mishra, AGA
Mr. C. S. Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 01.07.2024
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioners, through this Writ Petition, have challenged the
order no.8 dated 25.05.2022 passed in F.A. No.299/2011 under
Annexure-5 Series passed by learned SCDRC, Cuttack/Opposite
Party No.1 in dismissing the First Appeal preferred by the
Petitioner No.1 against the order of learned DCDRF,
Bolangir/Opposite Party No.2, for default for non-appearance for
one date, the order dated 24.08.2023 passed in R.A. No.390/2022
under Annexure-7 arising out of F.A. No.299/2011 holding not to
be maintainable and provisions of C.P. Act, 2019. The Petitioners
also challenge the order of arrest dated 21.06.2023 passed by the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
// 2 //
learned DCDRC, Bolangir in Execution Application No.03/2023
(arising out of C.C. No.01/2010 disposed of on 28.04.2011) under
Annexure-8 Series.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this Court has
earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 18.10.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.6025 of 2023 (Bargarh Sub-Divisional
House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bargarh vrs.- State
of Orissa & Ors.). Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may
be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of
Bargarh Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society
Ltd., Bargarh (supra).
5. Learned counsels for the Opposite Parties submit that they
have no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the
judgment passed in the case of Bargarh Sub-Divisional House
Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bargarh (supra).
6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case
of Bargarh Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society
Ltd., Bargarh (supra), it appears that similar issue has already
been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was
disposed of on 18.10.2023. The ordering portion of the said
judgment is as follows.
"16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightfully
contended that Rule-11(6)(a) of the Consumer Protection
(CDRC) Rules, 2020 stipulates that the appellant or his
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
// 3 //
authorised agent fails to appear before the State
Commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the
appeal or decide it ex-parte on the merit of the case, but
here the State Commission by exercising his discretion
dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution reason rather
than deciding the appeal on merit.
17. The law is well settled that while exercising the
discretion, the Commission should pass reasoned order for
the interest of justice. However, the State Commission
failed to exercise his discretion, while dismissing the appeal
for non-prosecution when the same has not came into
finality.
18. Since the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant before the State Commission is not in the
profession as he is holding a statutory post of Human
Rights Commission. However, this has not been considered
by the State Commission while hearing the restoration
petition. Moreover, considering that the principle of
natural justice could not be followed and it is always
prudent for any judicial forum to dispose of the matter on
merit to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding, however, the
State Commission without sufficient reason dismissed the
Appeal for non prosecution.
19. From the conspectus of factual matrix, this Court is
inclined to accede to the submission of the petitioner. In
light of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the
present position of law, this Court hereby quashes the
order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in
C.D.A. No.310/2005 and order dated 16.01.2023 passed in
R.A.No.15/2022 arising out of C.D.A.No.310/2005 and
directs the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Odisha, Cuttack to restore the case and
dispose of the matter on merit.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
// 4 //
20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of."
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and taking into account the judgment dated
18.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.6025 of 2023, this Court is
inclined to accede to the submissions of the Petitioners.
Accordingly, this Court quashes the order No.8 dated 25.05.2022
passed in F.A. No.299/2011 and the order dated 24.08.2023
passed in R.A. No.390/2022 arising out of F.A. No.299/2011 by
the learned SCDRC, Cuttack/Opposite Party No.1, so also the
order of arrest dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned DCDRC,
Bolangir in Execution Application No.03/2023 (arising out of C.C.
No.01/2010 disposed of on 28.04.2011) and directs the learned
SCDRC, Cuttack/Opposite Party No.1 to restore the case and
dispose of the same on merit.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
