The Karnataka High Court on Friday came across a case in which a judicial member of the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission had ‘elaborately’ heard a case filed by none other than his son, but did not sign the order. His name and signature were ‘missing’ from the order pronounced by the Commission. Only two members of the three-member bench had signed the order.
The fact that Basavaraj S. Tadahal, a judicial member of the commission, had heard a case filed by his son came to light only after the order copy was released. The counsel for the opposite party started enquiring why the order was signed by only the two members — B.S. Indrakala, President of the commission, and G.T. Vijayalakshmi, a member — but not Mr. Tadahal.
Later, it emerged that Shivakumar B. Tadahal, son of the judicial member, was one of the applicants in the case and in whose favour the final order was pronounced.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Budihal, before whom a petition filed by High Point Finance Ltd came up for hearing, has stayed the ‘contentious’ order passed by the commission on February 10, 2017.
It has been pointed out in the petition that Mr. Tadahal had ‘actively’ participated in the hearing of the case on January 25, 2017 when the three-member bench heard elaborate arguments.
Also, the petitioner pointed out that even the counsel for Mr. Tadahal’s son never brought to the notice of the three-member bench the fact that they would be hearing an application of the member’s son.
“The most shocking aspect of the matter is that the judicial member, Mr. Tadahal, never recused himself from the bench when the matter was heard on January 25... Judicial propriety expected him [Mr. Tadahal] to reveal the reason and recuse himself from the case,” it was pointed out in the petition while claiming that “the way in which the Commission dealt with the case would only reflect a very sad state of affairs whereby the litigants would lose trust, faith and confidence in the judicial system.”
Mr. Shivakumar and several others had filed applications for execution of an order, passed by the Commission in March last year, directing a builder to complete construction of apartments, register sale deeds and deliver possession, and also for inclusion of the name of the petitioner as person responsible for execution of the order.
