HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18 / 2012
Kamal Travels Kokks International, Through Prop., Pramod Varyani
S/o Shri Bherumal Varyani Proprietor, aged about 49 years, B/c
Sindhi,R/o A-16, Model Town, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.),
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through The Secretary, Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Through its Registrar, Handloom Haveli, Ashok marg, C-
Scheme, First Floor, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The State Commission, Consumer Disputes for Rajasthan,
Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (Raj.)
4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Jodhpur
(Raj.)
5. Vinay Abhichandani, S/o Late Shri Heera Lal Abhichandani,
B/c Sindhi, R/o 379, Infront of Sardarpura Police Station, 4 th
C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Pooja Abhichandani, W/o Vinay Abhichandani, B/c Sindhi,
R/o 379, Infront of Sardarpura Police Station, 4 th C Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.C.Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Yashwant Mehta.
Mr.Hardik Daga for Mr.S.S.Ladrecha, AAG.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
14/03/2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 04:06:27 PM)
(2 of 2)
[CW-18/2012]
challenging the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by State Consumer
Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur in Appeal No.38/2011 on the
ground that only one Member of the Commission heard and
decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner and rejected the
same and as such, the order is without jurisdiction and has no
sanctity in the eye of law.
Shri Yashwant Mehta learned counsel representing the
contesting respondents candidly concedes that the order passed
by the State Consumer Commission is without jurisdiction because
the quorum thereof was not complete. At least, the Chairman and
one Member were required to hear the matter so as to constitute
the quorum for passing a valid decision as per Section 16(1)(b)(ii)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be
and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 7.12.2011
passed by the State Consumer Commission is quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded to the State Consumer
Commission, who shall rehear the matter and pass a fresh
judgment thereupon preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The parties shall remain present before the State Consumer
Commission on 9.4.2018.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun goyal/
98
(Downloaded on 15/07/2025 at 04:06:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
