Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred at the instance of the complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the Commission acted patently without jurisdiction in dismissing the plaint of the present petitioners since such dismissal order was passed by only one member of such Commission and not a Bench comprised of at least two members as contemplated under section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended. The matter was apparently entertained by this court on September 13, 2017 on the primary premise that the presiding member of the State Commission had passed the impugned order.
(3.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite party is in consonance with the correct position of law. It is argued by the opposite party that the operation of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the said Act is only restricted to proceedings referred to sub-section (1) of section 14, whereas the order impugned in the present revisional application is, on the face of it, one passed under section 13(2)(c) of the said Act. As such, the restriction contemplated in section 14(2) cannot be applied to the present case. A reference to Section 18 of the said Act further shows that provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the said Act are applicable mutatis mutandis to disposal of dispute by the State Commission.;