Ex-Parte Order Against GLADA Set Aside for Violating Natural Justice; Case Remanded: National Consumer Commission - 2025-10-15

NCDRC Sets Aside Ex-Parte Refund Order Against GLADA, Cites Violation of Natural Justice

New Delhi – The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside an ex-parte order that directed the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) to refund ₹34 lakh to a plot allottee. The bench, comprising Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra and Member Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, ruled that the State Commission's decision to proceed ex-parte against GLADA was "unsustainable" and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The matter has been remanded to the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for a fresh hearing, allowing GLADA an opportunity to present its case.

Case Background: A Dispute Over a Plot

The case originated from a complaint filed by Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, who was allotted a residential plot in a GLADA scheme in Jagraon for a total consideration of ₹34,00,000. After paying the full amount by September 2016, she alleged that GLADA failed to deliver possession within the promised 90-day period stipulated in the allotment letter.

Ms. Kaur claimed the delay was due to incomplete development, specifically the lack of an approach road, which required pending approvals from the NHAI and the Forest Department. Based on her complaint, the Punjab State Commission, in an ex-parte order dated February 13, 2018, directed GLADA to refund the entire amount with 12% annual interest, along with ₹50,000 in compensation and ₹25,000 for litigation costs.

Arguments Before the National Commission

GLADA challenged the State Commission's order, raising several key arguments: * GLADA's Position: The authority argued that the ex-parte order was legally flawed as they were not given a fair chance to file a written statement or rebut the claims. They contended that essential development works were completed by 2015 and that possession was "deemed" delivered when Ms. Kaur failed to take it within the stipulated 90 days. They also asserted that a direct connection to a National Highway was not a contractual obligation.

• Complainant's Position: Counsel for Ms. Kaur defended the State Commission's order, arguing that GLADA, a state entity, had shown a clear deficiency in service by failing to hand over possession despite receiving full payment. It was argued that the "deemed possession" clause could only apply after GLADA had fulfilled its primary duty of offering a fully developed plot. Evidence from RTI replies was presented to show that critical infrastructure like the approach road and sewerage connections were incomplete.

The Commission's Ruling on Procedural Fairness

The NCDRC focused its analysis not on the merits of the development claims but on the procedural validity of the ex-parte order. The Commission noted that the State Commission had proceeded against GLADA based on a presumption of service of notice, which was sent via registered post.

> The judgment highlighted a critical flaw in this approach: "While there could be presumption of delivery of registered post, there could have been no presumption of date of delivery. Even then, the State Commission proceeded by placing OPs ex-parte... and denied scope to file written version."

The Commission found that GLADA had challenged the ex-parte proceedings at its very first appearance but was denied the opportunity to be heard. This denial, the NCDRC concluded, violated the fundamental principles of natural justice.

Final Decision and Its Implications

In its final order, the NCDRC set aside the State Commission's decision, stating: > "In view of the aforesaid discussions, the denial to be heard with respect to service of notice, allowing the written version to be filed and placing OPs exparte... are evidently unsustainable being violative of principles of natural justice."

The case has been remitted back to the State Commission, which has been directed to first determine the facts surrounding the service of notice and then provide GLADA an opportunity to be heard before deciding the complaint afresh, preferably within three months.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to procedural fairness, emphasizing that even government authorities are entitled to a fair hearing. It serves as a reminder that consumer forums must ensure that the right to be heard is protected before passing orders with significant financial implications.