2010 (9) TMI 886 - SC - Indian Laws

Revision petition - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Commission dismissed the revision petition without giving any reason Held that - Bank has filed a separate appeal, it has a right to be heard independently in support of its appeal. That right has been denied by the State Commission, case is remanded to the State Commission for hearing on merits, appeals are allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can dismiss a revision petition without providing reasons.
2. Whether the NCDRC and State Commission failed to independently consider the appeal filed by the Bank.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dismissal of Revision Petition Without Providing Reasons:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the NCDRC dismissing the builder's revision petition without providing any reasons. The Court emphasized that the NCDRC, being a high-powered quasi-judicial forum, must provide reasons for its decisions. The Court noted that the necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision has been a well-established principle in various judgments. The Court cited several cases, including A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, Kesava Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, and Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, which underscore the importance of reasoned orders to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in decision-making. The Court concluded that the NCDRC's cryptic order dated 31-8-2007, which merely affirmed the State Commission's findings without providing reasons, was insufficient and set aside the order, remanding the matter back to the NCDRC for a reasoned decision.

2. Independent Consideration of Bank's Appeal:
The Supreme Court also examined whether the NCDRC and the State Commission failed to independently consider the appeal filed by the Bank. The Court found that the State Commission dismissed the Bank's appeal without independent consideration, merely relying on its earlier order in connection with the builder's appeal. The Court held that the Bank, having filed a separate appeal, had a right to be heard independently. The Supreme Court quashed the orders of the State Commission and the NCDRC, which had affirmed the State Commission's order, and remanded the case back to the State Commission for an independent hearing on merits. The Court directed the State Commission to provide adequate reasons for its conclusions and to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of service of the order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders in quasi-judicial and administrative decisions. The Court remanded the matters back to the respective forums for fresh consideration with directions to provide reasoned decisions. No order as to costs was made.