BENGALURU: The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is in the dock as it allegedly set a glaring precedent which would cause damage to judicial propriety.
A judicial member, who was part of the three-member bench of the commission, heard some execution applications, including that of his son’s. But the judicial member’s name was not mentioned in the judgment. The applications were filed before the commission seeking directions to a developer to execute sale deed of apartments in favour of the applicants, who included the son of the judicial member.
The applications were allowed in the judgment pronounced on February 10 which has the name and signature of the president and another member but it does not have the name or signature of the judicial member in question.
Shivakumar B Tadahal was one of the applicants before the commission where his father, B S Tadahal, was part of the proceedings.
Advocate K N Phanindra approached the High Court against the judgment of the commission bench comprising President B S Indrakala, members G T Vijayalakshmi and B S Tadahal.
“The most shocking and glaring aspect is that Tadahal’s name was not mentioned in the judgment. Judicial member Tadahal is an interested party in the said proceedings since the execution application has been filed by his son. Though the execution application of his son had been posted before the commission on January 25, B S Tadahal actively participated in the proceedings.
It was only when the order was pronounced on February 10 that his name was found missing in the impugned order,” he said.
He further stated that judicial member B S Tadahal never recused himself from the bench when the matter was heard on January 25, 2017. Judicial propriety expects him to reveal the reason and recuse himself from being a part of the bench hearing the matter. Even his son’s counsel did not bring it to the notice of the commission. Thus, the entire procedure has been subverted leading to a conclusion that the impugned order is biased and arbitrary,” Phanindra said.
He requested the court to set aside the impugned order, wherein execution applications were allowed and asked High Point Finance Pvt Ltd to complete the construction work of the apartments and to register the sale deeds and deliver possession of the apartments within three months from date of the order.
An HC division bench stayed the commission’s judgment.