K.S. SIDHU vs Senior Executive Engineer

HEARD.

THE order dated 29.2.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum), on the face of it is cryptic and non-speaking. It is liable to be set-aside on that ground alone. While rejecting the complaint, it has simply been stated by the District Forum as under : "As there is no evidence before this Forum on the basis of which any prima facie case is made out against the opposite parties. Thus, the application is hereby declined."

No reasons have been given by the District Forum before holding that there was no evidence before the Forum on the basis of which any prima facie case was not made out against the opposite parties. The District Forum should have discussed the evidence produced before it by the complainant before taking its decision. There is no dispute that a reference has been made by the complainant to too many documents in his application; but the District Forum without making reference to any of the documents chose to decline the complaint by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order. We do not suggest for a moment that the evidence produced by the complainant in the form of such documents, as mentioned above, and other evidence relied upon by the complainant prove or disprove the contention of the complainant for allowing his prayer to take action as required by Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 304, Cr.P.C. and make a complaint in writing for prosecution of both the opposite parties for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. But without appreciating the contents and judging the evidentiary value of the documents mentioned above, it was not just and proper for the District Forum to hold that there was no evidence before it on the basis of which any prima facie case could be made out against the opposite parties. The order of the District Forum is, thus, laconic, unjust and arbitrary and is, thus, liable to be set-aside.

IN these circumstances, this appeal is allowed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. Consequently, the order dated 29.2.2000 of the District Forum is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Both the parties will be given adequate opportunity of hearing by the District Forum. Record of the District Forum be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed with costs.