1.       This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Rajasthan Housing Board and its two Resident Engineers at Jagatpura and Dausa, Rajasthan, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2014, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 591 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed their Appeal and affirmed the order dated 21.04.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Jaipur Fourth (for short “the District Forum”) in Dispute No. 186 of 2013.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant, Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners herein in recovering unreasonable value of the house, allotted to him, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to charge value of the land, on which house allotted to the Complainant was constructed, @ ₹1,000/- per sq. mt., instead of ₹2,780/- per sq. mt., and accordingly issue modified allotment-cum-possession letter.  The District Forum had also directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation towards financial loss, mental/physical torture and ₹2,500/- as litigation costs.

2.       On 09.05.2005, the Complainant had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- with the Petitioners as registration amount for allotment of a Middle Income Group “A” House in the Scheme, christened as “Khan Bhakri Road, Dausa Housing Scheme”, floated by the Petitioners.  Pursuant to receipt of letter dated 31.01.2007, vide which the Petitioners had informed the Complainant about reservation of a house under the said Scheme in his name, a total sum of ₹47,000/- was deposited by him with the Petitioners.  After expiry of three years, a letter was issued by the Petitioners to the Complainant, informing him that House No. 1/47 was allotted to him on 27.06.2007.  Subsequently when the Petitioners sought to recover certain amounts from the Complainant towards the said house, the Complainant protested against the said demand, stating that it was not according to the rates prevalent in the year 2008.  On 09.08.2011, the Complainant had issued a legal notice to the Petitioners in the matter and had also requested for issuing fresh demand letter but all in vain.  In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had prayed for the reliefs mentioned therein.

3.       On appraisal of the material placed by the parties before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioners.

4.       Aggrieved, the Petitioners carried the matter further in their Appeal before the State Commission.  By the impugned order, as noted above, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners.  

5.       Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable, inasmuch as it is absolutely non-speaking and without any reasoning.  It simply affirms the order passed by the District Forum without indicating any reason whatsoever. 

6.       The requirement of recording of reasons for arriving at the final conclusion, particularly by a quasi-judicial body, is well-established and needs little reiteration.  Nevertheless, for the benefit of the State Commission, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 668, wherein while dealing with a grievance under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Authority under the said Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is, therefore, imperative that such a body should arrive at conclusions based on reasons.

7.       As noted above, in the impugned order the State Commission has failed to record any reasons in support of its decision to dismiss the Appeal.  Such a conduct on the part of a quasi-judicial body, headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, cannot be appreciated.  In this view of the matter, I have no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits.  It is pointed out by learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, that the entire evidence, available on the record before the District Forum, has not been taken into consideration by the State Commission in the Appeal filed before it.  It will be open to the Petitioners to urge all these points before the State Commission.

8.       In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the Appeal is restored to the Board of the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits. 

9.       The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 20.04.2018 for further proceedings.

10.     Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2013, we request the State Commission to take a final decision in the Appeal as expeditiously as practicable, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.          

11.     The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.