Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 32
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
A. P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Mani Square Limited – Appellant
Versus
Susanta Das – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/150/2026 | NC/IA/1733/2026 | NC/IA/1735/2026 | Transfer Application No. 2 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pravin Bahadur, Rajnandani Dutta, Shreyas Awasthi, Debo Jyoti Das
For the Respondents: Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Barun Prasad, Rupali S. Ghosh
The alteration of a judicial order post-finalization by a commission member, combined with a party's relationship to a commission employee, violates principles of natural justice and justifies the transfer of proceedings due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Headnote:The matter involves a builder-buyer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, where the petitioner challenged orders passed by the State Commission. The petitioner alleged that a judicial order dated 12.11.2025 was altered on the official portal after being 'de-finalized' by a member of the commission, and further alleged that the complainant is the spouse of an employee of the said commission, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court examined whether the modification of the order and the familial link to a commission employee violated the principles of natural justice. Based on a report from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) confirming the 'de-finalization' and subsequent alteration of the order, the court held that such irregularities, coupled with the relationship of the party to the commission's staff, substantiated the apprehension of bias. Both the Revision Petition and the Transfer Application are allowed.
ORDER
Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2025 has been instituted by the Complainant (Non-Applicant/Respondent) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal (for short the West Bengal State Commission). The prayer made in the Complaint arises out of a Builder-Buyer Dispute where deficiency is alleged in the delivery of possession of a flat/apartment booked by the Complainant and on account of the alleged deficiency, delay compensation and other reliefs referred to therein have been claimed.
Revision Petition No. 150 of 2026 has been filed by the Opposite Party in the Complaint, Applicant/Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness of the impugned orders dated 12.11.2025 and 28.01.2026 passed by the West Bengal State Commission in the said Complaint. Given the nature of the dispute and an allegation that the Complainant was employed somewhere in the Department of Consumer Affairs and had allegedly influenced the passing of the impugned orders, Transfer Application No. 2 of 2026 was filed praying that the proceedings be transferred to some other State as the Applicant/Petitioner had a reasonable apprehension of bias that was expressed in detail in the Transfer Application and has also been made a ground of raising a challenge in the Revision Petition to the orders passed. Since the matter also involved the manner of the uploading of the orders and the deviation in the contents of the orders, the prayer in the Revision Petition was to set aside the orders but at the same time the prayer in the Transfer Application was to transfer the case to some other State by exercising powers under Section 62 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Transfer Application was heard along with the Revision Petition on 24.02.2026 when the following order was passed:
ÒThe contention raised is that on the peculiar facts that emerge from a reading of the orders passed by the SCDRC West Bengal (for short the State Commission), and the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant/petitioner, we find it expedient to entertain the revision petition on a prima facie consideration of the grounds raised regarding the passing of orders and their uploading in the proceedings before the State Commission.
There are other concerns that have been raised, for which certain allegations have been made in respect of the status of the complainant being the husband of an employee of the State Commission, namely, Smt. Debashree Nag about which we shall refer to hereinafter.
Mr. Pravin Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RP/150/2026 and for the applicant in TA/2/2026, urges that the complaint was filed along with a stay application and no orders were passed on the said stay application at the time of the institution of the complaint. The facts which give rise to the present controversy emerge from the order passed by the State Commission on 12.11.2025 being Order No.5 as on the record of the State Commission in CC/36/2025. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the order passed on 12.11.2025 in the presence of counsel for the parties is as follows:
ÒOrder No. 5
Ld. Counsels for both parties are present.
Today is fixed for hearing of IA/1016/2025 filed by the complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that they did not receive any copy of IA.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that if no interim order of stay is granted the case shall become infructuous.
So fix 28.01.2026 for hearing of IA. W.O. if any, be filed in the meantime.
Interim order of stay, if there is any, be extended till the next date.Ó
This order seems to have been passed after the filing of another interim application on 08.11.2025 seeking stay of the cancellation of the booking of the unit dated 07.10.2025. Learned counsel submits that the order passed on 12.11.2025 quoted hereinabove categorically recites that 28.01.2026 is fixed for the hearing of the interim application and written objections, if any, be filed in the m
