This appeal has been filed under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 20.09.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 393 of 2016. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants (the ‘complainants’) and the learned counsel for the respondents (the ‘builder co.’). We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 20.09.2018 and the memorandum of appeal. 3. At the very outset learned counsel for the builder co. draws attention to para 14 of the memorandum of the appeal, which is being reproduced below for reference: 14. That further it is submitted that when the arguments were heard in the Complaint on 18.09.2018, it was heard by the Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member, Sh. Ram Singh Chaudhary alone. But, however, when the judgement came, it was signed by other member Mrs. Manjula, Member also. It is a matter of fact that Mrs. Majula was not even joined on that day (18.09.2018) or if joined then might be on leave on 18.09.2018, even then it was signed by the Hon’ble Member, Mrs. Manjula. Although the author of the order is the Judicial Member, Hon’ble Ram Singh Chaudhary. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside, in the interest of justice. Learned counsel fairly submits that, as written in the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 20.09.2018, the ‘Coram’ has been shown to be that of Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member and Mrs. Manjula, Member. Even the Order has been signed by both the said Members. However, as ascertained from the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the builder co. before the State Commission, arguments were heard on 18.09.2018 by only one Member, Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary. The other Member, Mrs. Manjula, was not sitting in the arguments and did not hear the case at all. Submission is that with such anomaly staring in the face the matter requires to be heard afresh by the State Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the complainants too makes similar submission. He submits that he had himself argued the matter on behalf of the complainants before the State Commission. The arguments were heard on 18.09.2018 by only Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member, and Mrs. Manjula, Member was not sitting in the arguments. However the Order dated 20.09.2018 has been signed by both Members. Learned counsel further requests that, considering the circumstances, the State Commission may be requested for early and time-bound disposal of the matter. 5. In the wake of the circumstances as submitted, there appears no other alternative but to set aside the Order dated 20.09.2018 of the State Commission and to remand the case back to the State Commission. Judicial propriety and discipline demand that the matter be heard and decided afresh by a bench duly constituted by the President of the State Commission. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.03.2023. In the peculiar facts of the case, we may request that the matter may be heard and decided by the State Commission on merit as per the law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date the parties appear before it (i.e. from 14.03.2023) and further that if for any reason it is not possible to decide the case within three months to then undertake day-to-day priority hearings to decide it at the earliest. 6. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. ‘Dasti’, in addition, to both sides. | 
