Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.11.2021, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna, sitting singly, in Appeal No. 46 of 2020.

2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the order dated 19.11.2021,passed by the President, State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna sitting singly, is in teeth of the mandate of Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the said order dated 19.11.2021, suffers from the vice being coram non judis.

3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow Section 18 and Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

18. Procedure applicable to State Commission.—The provisions of sections 12, 13 and 14 and the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaint by the Districts Forum shall, with such modification as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission ..."

And

14. Finding of the District Forum

...(2) Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together:

PROVIDED that where the member, for any reason, is unable to conduct the proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall conduct such proceeding de novo: ...”

4. It would also be relevant to refer to Section 47(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is being reproduced hereinbelow.—

47. Jurisdiction of State Commission.—

(2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit:

Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench.

5. The issue under consideration is no longer res integra inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gulzari Lal Agarwal vs. Accounts Officer, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 590, has held that every proceeding shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum/State Commission and at least one member thereof sitting together. In this regard it would be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment rendered in the case of Gulzari Lal Agarwal (supra):—

17. After giving careful thought to the rival contentions raised before us, we are of the considered opinion that the relevant provisions which we have quoted hereinabove will have to be construed harmoniously to promote the cause of the consumers under the Act. As indicated earlier, the definition of member includes the President and a member of a District Forum/State Commission. It is true that subsection (2) of Section 14 read with Section 18 requires that every proceeding referred to under sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum/State Commission and at least one member thereof sitting together. Sub-section (2-A) is consequential in the sense that every order made by the State Commission under subsection (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding. The procedure applicable to the District Forum is made applicable to the State Commission vide Section 18 with such modifications as may be necessary. Plain reading of sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 14 may support the view taken by the National Commission but if these provisions are read with Section 29-A of the Act and sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 6, it would be quite clear that it could never be the intention of the legislature to stall or render the State Commission non-functional in the absence of the President either having not been appointed in time due to some valid reasons or if the President is on leave due to certain reasons beyond his control. Sub-sections (2) and (2-A) of Section 14 and Section 18-A of the Act were brought into force with effect from 18.6.1993 whereas Section 29-A was made applicable from 15.6.1991. The Rules