The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that excluded the respondent's written statement due to statutory delay, deeming it a procedural matter.
The writ petition and pending applications were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~54
INDER JIT SINGH AHUJA .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 23.08.2024
“Evidence by way of affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant is on record.
Written synopsis filed on behalf of the opposite party is on record. Perusal of the order dated 02.11.2020 shows that the written statement was filed beyond the statutory period and the delay in filing the same was not condoned by our learned predecessor WS order be taken off the record. Relist the matter on 27.05.2024.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:00:56
deprived of his right to defend the proceedings in a fair and equitable manner, therefore contravening the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it is contended that State Commission has committed a procedural error, thus rendering the Impugned Order to be violative of the legal maxim “ Actus Curiae neminem gravabit ”. Additionally, reliance is placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court, including ‘ Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr.’2 , to urge that the Rule of audi alteram partem has also not been adhered to in the present case.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 23, 2024/ab
1 “Impugned Order”
2 (1978) 1 SCC 248
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:00:56
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition against a procedural order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission refusing to condone delay in filing a written statement.
Whether the State Commission's decision to exclude the written statement due to untimely filing reflects arbitrariness or violation of natural justice requiring judicial intervention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶13
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Central Government Welfare Housing Organization
Inderjit Singh Ahuja
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
