[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Seven Hills Estate Ltd vs Orissa State Consumer Dispute ..... ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2893 of 2025
M/s. Seven Hills Estate Ltd., ..... Petitioner
Sibasurubali, Puri
Represented by Adv. -
Prasant Kishor Ray
-versus-
Orissa State Consumer Dispute ..... Opposite Parties
Redressal Commission,
Bidanasi, Cuttack & Anr.
Represented by Adv. -
m/s monmoy basu,
r.sethy, m/s s.b.sarangi
(mishra), a.k.nayak (for
intervenor)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.03.2026
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. P.K.Ray, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
as well as Mr.M.Basu, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Party No.2 and learned counsel appearing for the Interveners who
have not yet been impleaded as parties to the present proceeding.
Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application the Petitioner calls into
question the validity of order dated 22.10.2024 passed in E.A. No.35
of 2020/ I.A.88 of 2024 arising out of consumer complaint No.17 of
2017 by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
Cuttack. By virtue of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024, learned
State Consumer Commission Odisha, Cuttack, allowed the prayer for
judgment debtor seeking time before the Commissioner on the
ground of illness of the conducting counsel. However the same was
made subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the decree
holder. The cost was to be paid by the judgment debtor to the decree
holder by 11.11.2024. Being aggrieved by such order of the learned
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack, the
judgment debtor has approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
4. Mr. Ray, learned Senior Counsel in course of his argument
stated before this Court that imposing cost of Rs.10, 000/-.one of the
harshest remedy. He further submitted that an adjournment was
sought for on the ground of illness of the counsel and although time
was allowed, the learned Commission has imposed a heavy cost of
Rs.10,000/- on the decree holder. On such ground, learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order dated
22.10.2024 is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law and,
accordingly, prayed for quashing of the said order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the
other hand did not object to a quashing of the cost imposed by the
learned State Commission vide order dated 22.10.2024. Mr. Basu,
learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties contended that he
is not interested in the cost and that he will have no objection if the
cost imposed by the learned commission is quashed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Interveners on the other
hand also contended that he will also have no objection with the cost
imposed by the learned State Commission is quashed by this Court.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the impugned order dated
22.10.2024 passed in EA. No.35 of 2020, this Court observes that in
the pending EA proceeding an application was moved on behalf of
the judgment debtor for adjournment on the ground of illness of the
conducting counsel. The learned State Commission although granted
time till 11.11.2024, however imposed the of cost of Rs.10,000/- on
the decree holder.
8. On a careful consideration of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, further on a close scrutiny
of order dated 22.10.2024, this Court is of the view that imposing a
cost of Rs.10,000/- while granting adjournment to the counsel on the
ground of illness is one of the harshest remedy that has been adopted
by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
Cuttack. Moreover, the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 is against
the larger public interest, keeping in view the object kind a
legislation Consumer Protection Act. Considering the matter from
the aforesaid angle, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
dated 22.10.2024 imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- is unsustainable in
law. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the cost of Rs.10,000/- as has
been imposed by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Cuttack. It is further directed that the judgment debtor
shall file his show cause within six weeks from today and shall
cooperate with the learned Executing Court for an early conclusion
of the execution proceeding. Further, liberty is granted to the
judgment debtor to file applications in similar other execution cases,
wherein he has been shown as a judgment debtor and the facts which
are similar to the present case, for recall of the order passed therein
imposing similar costs. In the event any such application is filed
learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack
shall pass necessary orders thereon.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that the execution case is of
the year, 2020, parties are directed to cooperate with the learned
State Consumer Commission for an early disposal of the Execution
Cases and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the
execution proceeding.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
