SHANTHINIKETAN HOUSING FOUNDATION Vs. BRIG J N DEVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 27 (2) and (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act') as well as the procedure followed by the District and State consumer Forum in issuing arrest warrants against them. Therefore, all these writ petitions are taken up for consideration together i and disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the rival contentions, the facts pleaded in W. P. No. 700/ 2008 and the statement of objections filed in w. P. No. 18465/2006 by the Union of India which was adopted by them as the statement of objections in all the writ petitions, is set out as under.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is in the business of land development and construction. The writ petitioner entered into an agreement with the land owners for development of land bearing Sy. No. 4848 and 2878 at 6th Main, V. V. Puram, devaraja Mohalla, Mysore, on 29-7-2002. The petitioner also entered into an agreement with the respondents on 22-4-2004 for assigning, developing and completion of Hi-land park apartments at Mysore. According to the petitioner the construction was completed in accordance with the agreement and possession was also handed over to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner called upon the respondents to co-operate with him in order to execute a sale deed. The respondents failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 43,316/- and register the sale deed.

(3.) THE respondents filed Complaint No. 12/2006 before the District Consumer Forum, mysore, complaining of deficiency of service and the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 17-5-2006. Respondents filed Appeal No. 1504/2006 before the State Commission which was disposed of by an order dated 26-3-2007 whereby the respondents were directed to pay Rs. 43,000/- and the petitioner was directed to execute the absolute sale deed within two months after the receipt of the aforesaid amount. Respondents paid the amount accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner by their letter dated 7-7-2007 intimated the respondents that on 13-7-2007 the sale deed would be executed. At the request of the respondents a draft copy of the sale deed was also sent. Lot of correspondence ensued between the parties. In fact the petitioner also made an offer to pay back the amount to the respondents if they are not interested in taking the apartment. The case of the petitioner is that, he has already executed sale deeds in respect of the majority of the petitioners. When things stood thus the respondents filed an Execution Application for a direction to provide the things mentioned in the said application, to pay damages and for detention of the respondents until he has complied with the order of the Commissioner and for imposition of fine. Notice was ordered on the said execution Petition. After service of notice, the petitioner entered appearance through an advocate and the case was posted for objections on 1-1-2006. On 1-1-2008, the following order came to be passed :-"sri PDM filed power for J. Dr. on 20-12-2007 the J. Dr. counsel was directed to comply the order or to file objection but nothing has been done. D. Hr. submits for issue of coercive steps. If P. F. paid issue NBW against j. Dr. as it appears that the J. Dr. unless a coercive step is taken is not inclined to comply the order, through P. I. , Vontikoppal Police Station. Returnable by 17-1-2008"