SHREE CHARAN SOUHARDHA v. SMT. ALUMELU SOMANATH

SMT. ALUMELU SOMANATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SRI.B S SOMANATH,

SRI B S SOMANATH AGED ABOUT 66YEARS, S/O LATE SANKARANARAYAN,

SRI B S DATTATHREYA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SRI B S SOMANATH,

SMT. B S SHRUTHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, D/O SRI B S SOMANATH, ALL RESPONDENT R/AT NO.60 (OLD MUNICIPAL NO.59-60), NAGASHANKARA, 3RD CROSS, SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU 560004. (BY SRI. T DODAKHALANDAR, ADV. FOR SRI N RAMACHANDRA, ADV. FOR R1-R4) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14036-DB WP No. 968 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH APPEAL NO.487/2020 MADE BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU AND EXAMINE THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioner, respondent before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench) (for short, ‘State Commission’) is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 22.09.2020 in Appeal No.487/2020 (Annexure-K).

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.B.C.Seetha Ram Rao petitioner learned counsel Sri.T.Dadakhalandar for Sri.N.Ramachandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14036-DB WP No. 968 of 2021

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents, against rejection of their complaint

25.06.2020 C.C.No.1144/2018 by the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, filed appeal No.487/2020 before the State Commission. The only contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that appeal filed by respondents was allowed under impugned order dated

22.09.2020, without issuing notice to the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the State Commission could not have disposed of the appeal by passing order adverse to the petitioner without issuing notice. Learned counsel would submit that order passed by the State Commission is in total violation of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that no order against a person could be passed without hearing such a person. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14036-DB WP No. 968 of 2021

4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.T.Dadakhalandar for Sri.N.Ramachandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner is provided with alternative remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but would not dispute non-issuance of notice by the State Commission.

Normally, when a party is provided with alternative remedy, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be entertained. But, when the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, alternative remedy is an exception. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 would not dispute the fact of non-issuance of notice by the State Commission to the appellant. Moreover, on perusal of impugned order, it would not indicate issuance of notice and the hearing petitioner herein. No order could be passed without hearing a person against whom an adverse order is passed. In the instant case, petitioner is directed to - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14036-DB WP No. 968 of 2021 intimate Sub-Registrar concerned to redeem the simple mortgage deed dated 14.01.2008 in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that order passed by the State Commission is in total violation of principles of natural justice.