Point of Law : President or the senior most member is entitled to conduct proceedings of the National Commission in accordance with the statutory prescription.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The captioned appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.20153/2021 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30th September 2021 by which, the following relief sought for in the writ petition was declined:

“Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records relating to Exhibits P10 and P15 issued by the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Kottayam and to quash the same.”

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: Appellant was one of the opposite parties in C.C.No.1055 of 1998 on the files of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kottayam. The complaint was in respect of an agreement executed by and between the complainant and the Managing Director of a construction company for constructing a building having an area of 2035 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.250 per sq. ft. and the total cost of construction was agreed to be Rs.5,08,732.50. According to the complainant, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.7,01,119/-for the said construction, and the key of the house after the construction was handed over on 2.2.1998. It was the case of the complainant that a number of defects were noticed by the complainants in the building and there was leakage in the rooms, dampness on the walls of the building and the materials used were not of good quality, etc. Anyhow, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum granting compensation to respondents 4 and 5 herein and the decision of the Forum was affirmed in appeal by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a modification in favour of the appellant. The appellant and the party respondents challenged the decision of the State Commission before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and as per Ext.P1 order, the National Commission upheld the decision of the Forum and the State Commission with a modification in favour of respondents 4 and 5. Thereupon, the complainants instituted proceedings before the Forum for enforcement of the decision of the Forum with the modification made by the National Commission and the said proceedings are pending consideration. In the meanwhile, at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 i.e., the complainants, the Forum issued a notice to the appellant directing him to show cause why penalty in terms of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall not be imposed on the appellant, evident from Ext.P10. It is thus, basically challenging Ext.P10, the writ petition was filed. Ext.P15 is the order sheet of the Forum in E.A.No.214/2018 dated 8.7.2021 whereby, notice was issued to the respondents in the Execution Application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the matter was adjourned to 25.8.2021. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant before the writ court was that in the light of Sub Section 3 of Section 25 of the Act, 1986, the non compliance that is alleged is an order of the National Commission and therefore, proceedings under Section 27 of the Act, 1986 can be initiated only by the National Commission. Yet another contention was that in terms of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 15A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (Rules 1987), Ext.P1 order ought to have been signed either by the President or the senior most member of the National Commission, and the members of the National Commission, who conducted the proceedings and insofar as Ext.P1 order of the National Commission is not signed either by the President or the Senior most member of the Commission, the proceedings initiated under Section 27 of Act, 1986 is without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the scope of Sections 25 and 27 of Act, 1986 and Rule 15A of Rules 1987 has dismissed the petition holding that a reading of the provisions would show that the contentions raised by the appellant has no legal basis and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to get any relief. It is thus, challengin