M/S. Harmony Architects Vs B. S. Sudharshan — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S. Harmony Architects Vs B. S. Sudharshan — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned order of the State Commission in Appeal No.322/2019 dated 30.03.2024 is set aside; the matter is remitted to the State Commission for reconsideration after hearing both parties; the petitioners and respondent are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the State Commission on 30.03.2024, which records no reasons and takes no account of the arguments/written submissions advanced by the appellant/petitioners, can be sustained. +1 more

Court's answer

The order impugned records no reasons for its making, and no arguments have been noticed; reasons being the heart and soul of any judgment, the order cannot be sustained.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order of the State Commission dated 30.03.2024 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the State Commission for reconsideration after hearing both parties.

Key takeaways

The petitioners and the respondent are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m., and the Commission is requested to fix a date in the matter so that hearing may resume from the next date.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of certiorari under Articles 226/227 â€” Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's appellate order dated 30.03.2024 in Appeal No.322/2019 (confirming District Commission, Mysuru's order of 31.01.2019 in CC.No.464/2009(R)) set aside: the appellate order recorded no reasons and took note of no arguments or written submissions, and 'reasons are the heart and soul of any judgment'. Matter remanded to the State Commission for fresh consideration after hearing both parties; both sides directed to appear on 29.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. Counsel's invocation of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318, on the nearly 1.5-year delay between reservation for orders and pronouncement, was referred to in argument; the High Court rested its ruling on the absence of recorded reasons and did not expressly adopt those guidelines as its basis.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 14238 OF 2024 (GM-CON)

BETWEEN:

M/S. HARMONY ARCHITECTS NO.1173, 22A CROSS, 23^RD MAIN, BANASHANKARI, II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.JAYASHRI KIREETI.

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. K. R. SRIKANTA PRASAD S/O LATE SRI.K. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.9, SHRISHYLA, 8^TH CROSS JAYANAGARA HBCS, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU- 560 070.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA, V.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

B. S. SUDHARSHAN, S/O C.S.SHASHIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.805, 8^TH MAIN ROAD,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024

HC-KAR

C BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU - 570 017.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDITIONAL BENCH) IN APPEAL NO.322/2019 DATED 30/03/2024 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-H, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard Smt. Rakshitha V.N, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Sangamesh R.B, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024

HC-KAR

Under challenge in the instant petition is an

order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.322/2019 on 30.03.2024.

The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are:

Firstly, with reference to the order sheet which is filed as annexure - G to this petition that initially after hearing the parties, the matter was reserved for orders on 28.10.2021. However, subsequently, the case was again listed on 08.02.2022, 08.03.2022, 03.08.2022 and 11.10.2022 for further hearing. On 11.10.2022, the Court directed posting of the matters for orders. Thereafter, the order was passed on 30.03.2024 i.e. after a period of nearly 1½ years. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANIL RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR¹ to contend that such an inordinate delay in passing the order or judgment after hearing the same has not being approved of by the

1 (2001) 7 SCC 318

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024

HC-KAR

Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid case of Anil Rai , some guidelines were provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding pronouncement of the judgment, which find place in paragraph No.10 of the judgment. It is contended that the delay in passing the impugned order by the State Commission are in the teeth of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai's case.

Secondly, it is urged by the order impugned does not take into account any of the arguments advanced by the appellant/petitioner. It is stated that despite written submissions being filed, none of the submissions were considered.

We have perused the impugned order of 30.03.2024 in page No.59, which reads as under:

"The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

The impugned order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysuru in CC.No.464/2009(R) is confirmed.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024

HC-KAR

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission".

The order impugned does not record any reasons for passing of the order. Reasons are the heart and soul of any judgment. No arguments have been noticed. Under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained. It is therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Commission with a request that the same may be reconsidered after hearing both the parties and an appropriate decision may be taken as expeditiously as possible.

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent has stated that a particular date may be fixed before the State Commission for both the parties to appear since the complaint was originally filed in the year 2009.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30699-DB WP No. 14238 of 2024

HC-KAR

Therefore, we direct the petitioners and

respondent to appear before the State Commission on 29.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. We would request the Commission to fix a date in the matter so that hearing in the matter may resume from the next date.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed .

Sd/-

(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12