Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modifying its earlier appellate order, holding that the decision was completely unreasoned and violated the fundamental requirement of effective hearing. Observing that merely recording that a party was heard does not satisfy principles of natural justice, the Court remanded the matter back to the NCDRC for the second time with a strict direction to hear both sides and pass a reasoned order within a fixed timeline .
Facts
The dispute arose from consumer proceedings initiated against a real estate developer before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which culminated in an order dated 05.07.2024. This order was modified by the NCDRC in appeal on 07.01.2025. Subsequently, the consumer filed a modification application before the NCDRC, which was allowed on 25.02.2025 without hearing the developer. Aggrieved, the developer approached the Delhi High Court, which by an earlier order directed the NCDRC to reconsider the modification application afresh after hearing all parties.
Pursuant thereto, both sides appeared before the NCDRC and the developer filed a detailed reply. However, the NCDRC again passed an order reiterating its earlier modification without discussing or dealing with the objections raised by the developer, leading to the present challenge before the High Court .
Issues
The primary issue before the High Court was whether an adjudicatory body like the NCDRC can pass a modification order without recording reasons or addressing the submissions of a party, even after the matter had been remanded specifically for reconsideration after hearing. The case also raised the broader issue of the scope of the right to fair hearing and the obligation of tribunals to pass reasoned orders amenable to judicial scrutiny.
Petitioner’s arguments
The developer contended that the impugned modification order was ex facie unsustainable as it was completely silent on the objections raised in its reply. It was argued that the earlier remand by the High Court was necessitated precisely because the NCDRC had modified its order without granting a hearing. Despite this, the NCDRC repeated the same error by passing an unreasoned order that neither reflected application of mind nor disclosed why the developer’s submissions were rejected. According to the petitioner, this amounted to a serious violation of principles of natural justice and fair adjudication .
Respondents’ arguments
The respondents fairly conceded before the High Court that the impugned order could not be sustained. They did not seriously contest the petitioner’s grievance regarding absence of reasons and agreed that the matter required reconsideration by the NCDRC in accordance with law. This fair stand taken by the respondents facilitated consensual disposal of the petition.
Analysis of the law
The High Court emphasized that the right to hearing is not an empty ritual. An adjudicator must not only afford an opportunity of hearing but must also demonstrate, through a reasoned order, that the submissions advanced have been duly considered. The requirement of reasons is intrinsic to fairness, transparency, and accountability in decision-making. Reasoned orders enable superior courts to examine the legality and correctness of decisions and ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
Precedent analysis
While the Court did not rely on a specific precedent, its reasoning is rooted in settled constitutional principles governing natural justice and administrative law. Courts have consistently held that recording of reasons is an essential facet of fair procedure, particularly when statutory tribunals exercise quasi-judicial powers affecting valuable rights of parties. The present decision reinforces this long-standing jurisprudence in the context of consumer adjudication.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the impugned order was “completely silent” on the challenges raised by the petitioner and did not even whisper the arguments advanced on its behalf. Merely stating that parties were heard was held to be insufficient. The Court observed that once the matter had been remanded earlier for the specific reason that the petitioner was not heard, the NCDRC was under a heightened obligation to pass a speaking order. The failure to do so amounted to bruising the petitioner’s right to effective and fair hearing, rendering the order legally unsustainable .
Conclusion
Setting aside the impugned order with the consent of both parties, the Delhi High Court remanded the matter back to the NCDRC for the second time. The Court directed the NCDRC to hear both sides afresh on the modification application and pass a reasoned order explaining why the arguments are accepted or rejected. A strict timeline of four weeks was fixed for disposal, and the parties were directed to appear before the NCDRC on a specified date to avoid further delay .
Implications
This judgment sends a clear message to consumer fora and tribunals that compliance with natural justice requires more than procedural formality. Unreasoned orders undermine litigants’ confidence in adjudicatory institutions and invite repeated judicial intervention. By insisting on reasoned decision-making, the High Court has strengthened accountability in consumer adjudication and reinforced the supervisory role of constitutional courts over tribunal functioning.
Case law references
- Principles of natural justice – Reasoned orders
Courts have consistently held that adjudicatory authorities must record reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions, as reasoned orders are integral to fairness, transparency, and effective appellate review.
FAQs
1. Can an order be set aside merely for lack of reasons?
Yes. An unreasoned order violates principles of natural justice and can be quashed even if the authority had jurisdiction.
2. Is merely stating that parties were heard sufficient compliance with natural justice?
No. The adjudicator must disclose the submissions made and provide reasons for accepting or rejecting them.
3. Can tribunals be repeatedly remanded for the same defect?
Yes. If defects persist, courts can remand matters again and impose timelines to ensure compliance with law.
