SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6530

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bibhas Ranjan De, President, Mridula Roy, Member
Samir Das – Appellant
Versus
Swapan Kumar Mukhopadhaya – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/19/RP/67/2025|Appeal No. DC/303/CC/470/2018|CC/470/2018|MA/305/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arnab Dhar
For the Respondents: NEMO

An order passed by a consumer commission is unsustainable if it fails to provide reasoning (non-speaking order) and ignores the core merits and factual matrix of the application it is intended to resolve.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - Failure of the lower forum to address the core grievance and provide reasoning in an order renders the decision unsustainable under law and equity. (Para 4)

(B) Consumer Protection - Appointment of Commissioner - Scope of application - A forum cannot deviate from the specific purpose of an application (appointment of engineer commissioner) to pass an order that ignores the factual matrix and merits of the application. (Para 4)

Issues: Whether the order passed by the District Commission was a reasoned order and whether it correctly addressed the application for the appointment of an engineer commissioner.

ORDER

Order No.06 Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Revisionist is present. None appears on behalf of Respondents on call. No accommodation has been sought for.

This revision petition is taken up for hearing.

The instant revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.06.2025 passed in connection with CC/470/2018 whereby Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas at Barasat disposed of the application bearing No. MA/305/2024.

Upon a meticulous and searching scrutiny of the order impugned within the fore corners of this revision, we are constrained to observe that the Ld. Members of the jurisdictional DCDRC have strayed into extraneous realms, profoundly overstepping legitimate contours of an application dedicated solely to the appointment of an engineer commissioner. In doing so, the jurisdictional Forum failed to address the core grievance regarding the alleged shortfall in the area of the subject flat arising from an ostensible violation of the agreement for sale. Regrettably, the impugned order maintains a conspicuous silence regarding the intrinsic merits and factual matrix of the subject application – an omission whose underlying rationale remains entirely inscrutable, locked within the exclusive domain of the Ld. Forum’s contemplation.

Consequently, finding the impugned order fundamentally unsustainable under the tenets of law and equity, the same is hereby set aside.

We remit the matter back, requesting the jurisdictional DCDRC to accord a fresh hearing to the application, ensuring a full and fair opportunity is granted to all contesting parties, and to resolve the dispute through a speaking and well-reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within a span of six weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to the Jurisdictional DCDRC for its strict information and seamless compliance.

Parties herein shall be entitled to free copy of this order in accordance with the prescribed rules.

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission positively on 11.09.2026.

The RP/67/2025 stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top