These First Appeals Nos.1063 of 2016 and 1064 of 2016 have been filed by Chairman, Maheshtala Municipal Corporation against the order dated 30.3.2016 in CC No.87/2016 and order dated 23.5.2016 in MA No.358/2016 in CC No.87/2015 respectively. In FA No/.1063/2016 by way of impugned order, the State Commission has proceeded appellant/OP-4 ex parte. FA No.1064/2016 has been filed against MA No.358/2016 in CC No.87/2015 filed by OP-4 for deleting them from the array of parties which was dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2016 by the State Commission. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents. None appeared even after service of notice. Hence, the respondents were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 4.5.2017. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the State Commission has proceeded ex parte against the OP-4 because his advocate could not be present till 11 O’clock before the Commission when the case was called out. 5. In the normal course, the State Commission should have passed over the matter. However, the matter was proceeded ex parte on the first call itself. The impugned order clearly states that nobody on behalf of OP-4 turned up by 11 a.m. The learned counsel for OP-4 later on turned up before the State Commission. However, he came to know that OP-4 had already been proceeded ex parte. In fact, OP-4 is not a necessary party in the whole case as they are the institutory body and are not concerned with the dispute between the complainant and other OPs. MA No.358/2017 was moved before the State Commission on 18.4.2016 for deleting OP-4 from the array of parties but the same was dismissed on the ground that OP-4 was already proceeded ex parte and he had not locus standi to file aforesaid MA after the ex parte order. 6. The learned counsel requested that the MA No.358/2016 may be accepted by this Commission and OP-4 may be deleted from the array of parties. 7. After considering the averments made by learned counsel and after perusing the record, it is clear that MA No.358/2016 dated 18.4.2016 which is after the date of passing of the ex parte order against OP-4 by the State Commission which was passed on 23.5.2016 Thus, the State Commission was totally right in rejecting MA No.358/2016 on the ground that OP-4 was already proceeded ex parte. It has also been alleged that MA No.358/2016 has not been considered on merits by the State Commission and hence this Commission cannot entertain MA No.358/2016 for deletion of OP-4 from the array of parties directly. 8. It is true that the State Commission has only waited till 11 A.M. for the parties. It is general practice that Consumer Fora pass over the matter at least once in the interest of the parties. Thus, prima facie the State Commission was not justified in passing the ex parte order at 11 a.m. Accordingly, the ex parte order dated 30.3.2016 against OP-4 passed by the State Commission is set aside at a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before the next date of hearing.. 9. The appellant is directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.5.2017, the date already fixed before the State Commission. 10. So far as MA No.358/2016 is concerned, the State Commission has disposed of this MA only on the technical ground that OP-4 was not entitled to file this MA as OP-4 was already proceeded ex parte. Now, such ex parte order of the State Commission has been set aside and appellant has been directed to appear before the State Commission on the next date fixed, the appellant herein shall be at liberty to move similar MA for deletion of OP-4 from the array of parties before the State Commission and the State Commission shall consider that MA on merits. 11. Accordingly, both the Appeals No.1063/2016 and 1064/2016 stand dispose of. | 
