HC deplores ‘casual approach’ of consumer panel after appeal remains pending for nearly 18 months

Bhubaneswar: In a strongly worded observation, the Orissa high court deplored the "lack of seriousness" and "casual approach" adopted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, while handling a consumer appeal that remained pending for over one-and-a-half years.The observation was made after the court found that the commission disposed of the appeal without the presence of either party and without explaining how the case record was allegedly "misplaced". Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, in his order dated Feb 27, noted that the commission, a statutory quasi-judicial authority, failed to demonstrate basic procedural diligence in managing the appeal, whose judgment was initially reserved on July 19, 2024.The high court observed that instead of delivering the long-pending judgment, the commission inexplicably listed the matter again in Feb 2026, citing missing records and disposed of the plea arbitrarily.Calling the conduct "unacceptable", the high court said that such lapses reflect poorly on the functioning of a commission entrusted with adjudicating consumer grievances across the state.It emphasised that consumer forums must handle appeals with the utmost care, particularly at a time when delays and vacancies already strained consumer justice mechanisms in Odisha.The order pointed out that despite the bench reserving judgment in 2024, the matter lay unattended for nearly 18 months. The eventual order passed on Feb 13, 2026, was delivered without the appearance of either party.It also lacked clarity on whether the missing record was ever reconstituted. "Such an approach cannot be countenanced," the court observed, adding that quasi-judicial forums must maintain procedural discipline to preserve public confidence.Setting aside the impugned order, the high court remanded the matter back to the commission for a fresh hearing. It directed the commission to provide adequate opportunity to all parties and to dispose of the appeal within two months.The functioning of the commission was hampered for quite a few years due to staff shortages. It did not have a stenographer for over a year to type orders and the bench delivered only 13 orders on merit in three years."The case highlights systemic issues affecting the state's consumer dispute redressal bodies. The commission is already under scrutiny for delays, vacancies and procedural bottlenecks. The govt should look after it with seriousness," social worker Alok Kar said.