SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-Ruma Pal and C.K. Thakker, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. of 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)Nos.3823-24 of 2002) D/d. 4.2.2005.

Haryana Urban Development Authority and another - Appellants

Versus

Janak Raj Batra - Respondents

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 17(1)(ii) and 21(b) - Appeal - Mode and manner of disposal - Speaking order - State Commission disposed of appeal by merely waiving the cost imposed by District Forum without giving any reason for rejecting appeal on merits - Revisional application to National Commission disposed of by recording that only question raised was question relating to payment of interest - Order not showing that appellants had restricted their grievance - Orders set aside - Matter remitted to State Commission to deiced the appeal on merits with reasoned order.

[Para 7]

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J. - Leave granted.

2. It is the appellants' case that the respondent had purchased a plot in an open auction from the appellants sometime in 1996. In 2001, the respondent made a complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the plot purchased was unsuitable and that, therefore, the respondent was entitled to an alternative plot. The District Forum passed an order directing the appellant to allot an alternative site to the respondent and also imposed costs of Rs. 1000/- The appellant preferred an appeal from the decision of the District Forum. The State Commission disposed of the appeal by merely waiving the costs imposed by the District Forum. The order of the District Forum was confirmed. However, no reason whatsoever was given by the State Commission for rejecting the appellants' appeal on merits.

3. The appellants' Revisional application to the National Commission was disposed of by recording that the only question raised by the appellant before the National Commission was that the respondent should be asked to pay interest on the delayed instalments. Counsel for the respondent having stated before the National Commission that his client was ready to pay interest in accordance with the prevalent policy, the National Commission directed that immediately upon receipt of the amount of interest the appellant would hand over the possession of the alternative site to the respondent. It also stated that if the amount 'is not communicated within two weeks' by the respondent, possession would be given to the respondent in any case.

4. The appellants filed a miscellaneous application before the National Commission protesting against its recording of the statement that the appellant had only raised a question relating to the payment of interest on the delayed instalments by the respondent. The National Commission dismissed the application as under the law as it stood at the relevant time, review was not permissible.

5. The appellants preferred an appeal before this Court by way of a special leave petition. By an order dated 11.2.2002 this Court directed the status-quo to be maintained. The interim order is operating till today. The only grievance of the appellants' case is that their case should have been considered on merits by the State Commission.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the only ground raised before the State Commission was with regard to the payment of costs and that it was not open to the appellants to seek to reopen the entire issue at the stage.

7. Having perused the order of the State Commission, we are unable to accept that the appellants had restricted their grievance only to the payment of costs as held by the State Commission or interest as held by the National Commission. The appellants were entitled to a hearing on merits and a reasoned decision on their appeal. The orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for disposal of the appellants' appeal on merits with a reasoned order. In the meanwhile, there will be a status quo with regard to the plots. However, the interim order of status quo will continue subject to further orders interim or otherwise that may be passed by the State Commission.

8. The State Commission may grant such interim relief as it thinks fit uninhibited by the fact that this Court has directed the continuance of the status quo.

9. The civil appeals are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

.