1 wp 4735.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4735 OF 2011 Adarsh Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad, N-6, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Through its Manager. .. Petitioner Versus Pandit R. Jadhav, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Shri Hanuman Galli, Begumpura, Aurangabad. .. Respondent Shri K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. The respondent is party in person. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The respondent is present in person. The respondent had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes 2 wp 4735.11 Redressal Forum against the present petitioner, as the property which he had purchased by auction was not transfered in his name in the CIDCO office. The said complaint was initially allowed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the District Forum. The District Forum thereafter allowed the complaint with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that the District Forum has properly considered the matter. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court. 3. Shri K. J. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the matter was remanded by the State Commission to the District Forum the petitioner did not appear as the advocate who was engaged lost his father and because of that the proceedings went ex-parte. The State Commission has not considered this aspect. Even the order passed is without reasons. No reasons are recorded. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 12,500/- before the State Commission. The petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to put forth its case. 3 wp 4735.11 According to the learned counsel all the documents pursuant to the auction were handed over to the respondent and it was for him to get his name entered and the property transferred in the CIDCO record. 4. Per contra, the respondent party in person submits that in the year 2002 itself CIDCO had issued letter to the petitioner bank for compliance of the documents. But the petitioner did not comply the said documents. The respondent is litigating since 2006 and till today the house has not been transferred in his name in the CIDCO record. According to the respondent ample opportunities were given to the petitioner. The petitioner deliberately protracted the matter. 5. I have gone through the orders. The petitioner has given reasons in the appeal memo filed before the State Commission as to why the petitioner could not appear before the District Forum after the remand of the matter. It has been stated that the petitioner's advocate had lost his father and so could not appear. There is nothing to disbelieve this statement. No reasons are given by the State Commission for not considering these facts offered by the petitioner. The petitioner is also a institution and 4 wp 4735.11 opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner to put forth its case. However, the petitioner also deserves to mulct for the delay, as the respondent had to litigate the matter since 2006. 6. In the result I pass the following order. O R D E R a) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. b) The parties are relegated to appear before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Aurangabad on 26th September, 2011. c) The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 12,500/- to the respondent. Shri Suryawanshi states that an amount of Rs. 12,500/- is deposited with the State Commission. The same be adjusted in the present cost. d) The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 12,500/- deposited before the State Commissioner by the petitioner towards cost. e) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Aurangabad shall decide the said complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three 5 wp 4735.11 months from the date of appearance. f) Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11