A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) I hava heard Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THERE was a difference of opinion amongst two members' of the commis sion, as a result of which the matter was referred to the third member, who de cided the case. Perusal of the order reveals that on the date fixed the petitioner was not present and as such could not make his submission before third member to whom the matter had been referred. Section 28-A of the Consumer Protection Act lays down the procedure with regard to service of the notice on the party. The impugned order reveals that since the information had been displayed on the inter net, therefore, according to opposite party, the petitioner had suffi cient notice. The observation of the commission is manifestly erroneous. The no tice was not duly served on the petitioner as provided under section 28-A of the Act. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not been afforded an oppor tunity of hearing, therefore, the impugned order cannot be allowed to be sus tained.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.1.2009 is hereby quashed. The opposite party No. 1 shall decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the peti tioner. Petition Allowed;