Disposed

Union of India v. Sarmista Priyadarsini

Orissa HC17 Sept 2024WP(C)/22815/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India sought quashing of execution proceedings and an arrest warrant issued by the District Consumer Commission, Bolangir, and expeditious disposal of a review/recall application. Relying on its earlier judgment in the Bargarh Society case, the Court stayed the execution case and warrant and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Execution Case No.4 of 2024 and Warrant of Arrest dated 16.08.2024 stayed till decided by the authority; writ petition disposed of.

Union of India Vs Sarmista Priyadarsini — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

// 1 //

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.22815 of 2024

¶4

Union of India

¶5

…. Petitioner(s)

¶6

Represented By CGC Mr. Dipti Ranjan Bhokta

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Sarmista Priyadarsini

¶9

…. Opposite Party

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER

Order No.

17.09.2024

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶16

2 . Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

3 . The Petitioner, through this Writ Petition, has challenged the entire proceeding in Execution Case No.4 of 2024 and issuance of Warrant of Arrest dated 16.08.2024 arising out of C.C. Case No.71 of 2010 pending in the court of learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bolangir.

¶18

Apart from this, the Petitioner has sought for a direction from this Court to the learned SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack for an expeditious hearing and disposal of Review/Recall Application No.16 of 2024 in light of W.P.(C) No.2487 of 2019 in the matter of

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Rabindra Kumar Mohanty Vs. The Registrar, ITA, Cuttack Bench Cuttack.

¶22

4 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.6025 of 2023 ( Bargarh Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bargarh vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors.). Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Bargarh Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bargarh (supra).

¶23

5 . Learned counsels for the Opposite Parties submit that they have no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Bargarh Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bargarh (supra).

¶24

6 . On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Bargarh Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bargarh (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 18.10.2023. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows.

¶25

“16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightfully contended that Rule-11(6)(a) of the Consumer Protection (CDRC) Rules, 2020 stipulates that the appellant or his authorised agent fails to appear before the State

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

Commission may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it ex-parte on the merit of the case, but here the State Commission by exercising his discretion dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution reason rather than deciding the appeal on merit.

¶29

17. The law is well settled that while exercising the discretion, the Commission should pass reasoned order for the interest of justice. However, the State Commission failed to exercise his discretion, while dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution when the same has not came into finality.

¶30

18. Since the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before the State Commission is not in the profession as he is holding a statutory post of Human Rights Commission. However, this has not been considered by the State Commission while hearing the restoration petition. Moreover, considering that the principle of natural justice could not be followed and it is always prudent for any judicial forum to dispose of the matter on merit to avoid multiplicity of the proceeding, however, the State Commission without sufficient reason dismissed the Appeal for non prosecution.

¶31

19. From the conspectus of factual matrix, this Court is inclined to accede to the submission of the petitioner. In light of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the present position of law, this Court hereby quashes the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in C.D.A. No.310/2005 and order dated 16.01.2023 passed in R.A.No.15/2022 arising out of C.D.A.No.310/2005 and directs the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack to restore the case and dispose of the matter on merit.

¶32

20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of . ”

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

// 4 //

¶35

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.6025 of 2023, this Court is inclined to accede to the submissions of the Petitioner.

¶36

8. However, as an interim measure, it is directed that the Execution Case No.4 of 2024 and issuance of Warrant of Arrest dated 16.08.2024 arising out of C.C. Case No.71 of 2010 pending in the court of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bolangir shall remain stayed till the matter is decided by the said Authority.

¶37

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶38

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶39

Sumitra

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Sep-2024 14:14:27

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Union of India v. Sarmista Priyadarsini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sarmista Priyadarsini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Kulamani Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bulu Parida Vs State of Odisha

Jyotiraj Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Harekrushna Senapati Vs State of Odisha

Sarojini Bal Vs State of Odisha