Discretionary power in judicial proceedings must be exercised with valid reasons and adherence to natural justice principles; appeals should not be dismissed without consideration of merits.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner through this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in C.D.A. No.310 of 2005 and order dated 16.01.2023 passed in R.A.No.15/2022 arising out of C.D.A.No.310 of 2005 thereby dismissing the Consumer Appeal by exercising theirdiscretionary power for non-prosecution and refusing to restore the original appeal to the file without assigning any reason and without following the principle of natural justice.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Society Act, since 28.02.1955 and has been functioning in a rented house as its office. On 28.04.1999, the Collector, Bargarh sanctioned/approved a piece of land admeasuring an area A0.14 decimals from MS Plot No.7290 and 7292 of Mouza- Bargarh in Lease Case No.03/1993 by depositing Rs.2,80,000/- towards premium. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Bargarh handed over the possession to the Petitioner’s Society on 07.05.1999 for the purpose of construction of three storied building Shop Room-cum-Office on application of petitioner dated 26.02.1993.Accordingly, Special Planning Officer, Bargarh and Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality granted permission approving building plan vide his letter no.495 dated 05.08.1999 to make construction over the land allotted to the petitioner, since the estimated cost of the building was Rs.36,68,100/-.

3. However, the petitioner society had no fund to meet the project cost. Therefore, the petitioner society decided to makean advertisement/notice to receive the security deposit from the intending persons by inviting application in the prescribed format for allotment of shop-room as per byelaw of the registered society. Accordingly, the Opp. Party no.3 (complainant before the district consumer forum) and many others applied for the same in specific format for allotment of shop-room and as per the terms of notice, the applicant were to deposit security @ Rs.1,20,000/- per shop in the ground floor and Rs.90,000/- for 1st floor payable in installments of 50%, 25% and 25% and the said security amounts bears no interest and same would be refundable only on vacation or evacuation of shop room with proper notice, but the Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality restrained to the petitioner society from construction of the shop room-cum- office building by order dated 29.01.2000, challenging the order of Executive Officer, Bargarh Municipality, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition vide OJC No.1837/2000 before this Court, which was disposed of on 30.08.2016.

4. The petitioner filed OGLS Appeal Case No.02/2000 before the RDC, Northern Division, Sambalpur challenging the order of the Executive Officer, Municipality, Bargarh and the villagers also intervened the said appeal and for which the learned RDC passed restrained order on 28.02.2000 not to make any construction further and for which construction of said shoproom was not completed by the petitioner in due time, challenging the said interim order dated 28.02.2000 passed by RDC, Sambalpur the petitioner filed OJC No.8971/2001 before this High Court, which is pending till yet, but as an interim measure, this Court passed interim order on 27.07.2001 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner society.

5. It is submitted that one Hima Chandra Panda also filed a PIL bearing OJC No.2188/2000 which was disposed of on 30.08.2016, during pendency of the aforesaid proceeding some of the villagers made illegal