M/S.Nacons. Vs. Sri S.Sridhar. S/O Late H.Srinivasan. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr.justice b.s.patil, j.] this writ petition is filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the order dated 01.01.2011 passed in execution application no. 147/2010 passed by die bangalore rural and i addl. district consumer disputes redressal forum produced as annex-h.1. order dated 01.01.201 1 passed in execution application no. 147/2010 passed by the i addl. district consumer disputes redressal forum, bangalore rural, is challenged in this writ petition.2. the execution petition came to be instituted alleging that the order dated 17.06.2010 passed in complaint no.3070/2009 by the district forum as affirmed by the state consumer disputes redressal commission in. appeal no.3432/2010 disposed of on 22.11.2010, was not complied with.3. the direction issued in the complaint filed by the respondent herein is, that the opposite party shall furnish the copies of. (i) certificate issued by the electrical inspector for the use of the lift; (ii) occupancy certificate issued by the bda/bbmp; 4. the district forum directed to furnish the aforesaid certificates within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. the state commission has dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission. tire said order has attained finality. when the petitioner herein did not furnish the documents, the execution petition came to be instituted.5. the district forum has registered the petition filed before it as a complaint under section 200 cr.pc read with section 27 of the consumer protection art and took cognizance of the same and after recording the sworn statement of the complaint, has passed the impugned order stating that the direction issued by the district forum in the complaint filed had not been complied with and the explanation offered by the petitioner herein stating that he had made an application to the concerned officials seeking grant of occupancy certificate and that they were expecting the same and that they would produce the same after obtaining the copy, was negatived on the ground that mere giving an application to the concerned officer would not tantamount to complying with the direction of the forum. hence, the commission has proceeded to register the ease for the offence punishable under section 27 of the consumer protection act and has ordered to issue non-bailable warrant to the accused-petitioner herein, returnable by 25.01.2011.6. mr. jayakumar s.patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the entire procedure followed in registering the case and in taking cognizance is vitiated. he submits that the district forum was not right and justified in issuing non-bailable warrant for arrest of the petitioner in. the light of the submission made before the commission that one of the certificates had been furnished and in respect of the other certificate, application had been already filed before the competent authority seeking grant of the same. he draws the attention of the court to annexures-j & k - certificates obtained from the bangalore development authority and the chief electrical inspector, government of karnataka, respectively, to contend that the petitioner has obtained necessary certificates as directed by the forum and is in a position to comply with the direction issued by the district forum in its order passed disposing of the complaint. annexure-j - certificate is obtained from the bangalore development authority and it pertains to the occupancy certificate in respect of block-o in block-1. another certificate at annexure-k is issued by the chief electrical inspector, government of karnataka and it pertains to the license for operation of the lift in sy. nos.47 & 48. hmt main road, peenya, bangalore. the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that as annexure-j could not be obtained earlier, the same was not furnished to the complainant.7. counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that the occupancy certificate at annexure-j is only a partial occupancy and that annexure-k - certificate also dots not meet the requirements as directed by the district forum.8. though several contentions are urged, it is unnecessary to deal with the same. it is not for this court to find out whether furnishing of the two documents amounts to compliance of the direction issued by the district forum. the fact remains that the petitioner has come forward with two certificates and has produced them along with this writ petition. the explanation offered by the petitioner stating that the certificate annexure-j could not be obtained earlier appears to be genuine and deserves to be accepted. since the certificates arc now sought to be produced, the district forum has to examine whether the production of these certificates will tantamount to compliance with the direction issued by it. the arrest warrant issued in the facts and circumstances cannot be justified.9. in the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. the impugned order at annexure-h is set aside. petitioner is directed to appear before the district forum in execution application no. 147/2010 on 25.01.2011. on which date tin case is stated to be posted. the petitioner shall produce the documents annexuers-j & k. the district forum shall examine the matter and after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders with regard to the compliance of the order. this order is confined only to the petitioner in this writ petition.

Judgment:
1. Order dated 01.01.201 1 passed in Execution Application No. 147/2010 passed by the I Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Rural, is challenged in this writ petition.

2. The execution petition came to be instituted alleging that the order dated 17.06.2010 passed in Complaint No.3070/2009 by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in. Appeal No.3432/2010 disposed of on 22.11.2010, was not complied with.

3. The direction issued in the complaint filed by the respondent herein is, that the opposite party shall furnish the copies of. (i) Certificate issued by the Electrical Inspector for the use of the lift; (ii) Occupancy certificate issued by the BDA/BBMP;

4. The District Forum directed to furnish the aforesaid certificates within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal at the stage of admission. Tire said order has attained finality. When the petitioner herein did not furnish the documents, the execution petition came to be instituted.

5. The District Forum has registered the petition filed before it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Art and took cognizance of the same and after recording the sworn statement of the complaint, has passed the impugned order stating that the direction issued by the District Forum in the complaint filed had not been complied with and the explanation offered by the petitioner herein stating that he had made an application to the concerned officials seeking grant of occupancy certificate and that they were expecting the same and that they would produce the same after obtaining the copy, was negatived on the ground that mere giving an application to the concerned officer would not tantamount to complying with the direction of the forum. Hence, the Commission has proceeded to register the ease for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and has ordered to issue Non-bailable warrant to the accused-petitioner herein, returnable by 25.01.2011.

6. Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the entire procedure followed in registering the case and in taking cognizance is vitiated. He submits that the District Forum was not right and justified in issuing non-bailable warrant for arrest of the petitioner in. the light of the submission made before the Commission that one of the certificates had been furnished and in respect of the other certificate, application had been already filed before the competent authority seeking grant of the same. He draws the attention of the Court to Annexures-J & K - certificates obtained from the Bangalore Development Authority and the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Karnataka, respectively, to contend that the petitioner has obtained necessary certificates as directed by the forum and is in a position to comply with the direction issued by the District Forum in its order passed disposing of the complaint. Annexure-J - certificate is obtained from the Bangalore Development Authority and it pertains to the occupancy certificate in respect of Block-O in Block-1. Another certificate at Annexure-K is issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of Karnataka and it pertains to the license for operation of the lift in Sy. Nos.47 & 48. HMT Main Road, Peenya, Bangalore. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that as Annexure-J could not be obtained earlier, the same was not furnished to the complainant.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that the occupancy certificate at Annexure-J is only a partial occupancy and that Annexure-K - certificate also dots not meet the requirements as directed by the District Forum.

8. Though several contentions are urged, it is unnecessary to deal with the same. It is not for this Court to find out whether furnishing of the two documents amounts to compliance of the direction issued by the District Forum. The fact remains that the petitioner has come forward with two certificates and has produced them along with this writ petition. The explanation offered by the petitioner stating that the certificate Annexure-J could not be obtained earlier appears to be genuine and deserves to be accepted. Since the certificates arc now sought to be produced, the District Forum has to examine whether the production of these certificates will tantamount to compliance with the direction issued by it. The arrest warrant issued in the facts and circumstances cannot be justified.

9. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order at Annexure-H is set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum in Execution Application No. 147/2010 on 25.01.2011. on which date tin case is stated to be posted. The petitioner shall produce the documents Annexuers-J & K. The District Forum shall examine the matter and after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders with regard to the compliance of the order. This order is confined only to the petitioner in this writ petition.