SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. V.N. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner is a politician and a social worker. He is a former Minister for Commerce, Law and Justice of the Union of India for the period 1990-91 and is also a lawyer by profession. He was also the Chairman, of the Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade for the period 1994-96, a Member of Parliament for the period 1974-99, Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi for the period 1969-91, and Faculty of Harvard University for the period 1963-69, 1971, 1985-86 and 2001-2008 Summer Courses. The petitioner was also the President of the Janata Party.

(3.) Petitioner was the Chairman of the Express (Malayalam) (P) Ltd., a company engaged in the field of print media. Admittedly, the Express (Malayalam)(P) Ltd has been ordered to be wound up by this Court as per order dtd. 22/5/2003 in CP No.25 of 1994. The petitioner came to know about a news article published in IBN website, which is produced as Ext P1 in the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Thrissur (for short CDRF) has issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner in a case of alleged nonpayment of money deposited by an investor in the year 1986 with the Express (Malayalam)(P)Ltd. in which the petitioner was the Chairman. The petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act to get details regarding the proceedings of the CDRF. Ext P2 is the application and Ext P2(a) is the reply received by the petitioner. Along with Ext P2(a), the petitioner was served with a copy of the proceedings of the CDRF. From the records, the petitioner came to know that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this writ petition filed OP No. 125 of 1996 and OP No. 126 of 1996 before the CDRF, Thrissur for return of amount allegedly deposited by them with M/s. Express (Malayalam)(P) Ltd. The petitioner was not made as a respondent in his personal capacity in those Original Petitions and he was described as the person representing the Express (Malayalam) (P) Ltd. in the capacity of its Chairman. Ext P3 is the common order passed by the CDRF. According to the petitioner, he never entrusted any lawyer to appear on his behalf before the CDRF and he has not received any notice from the CDRF in connection with the above proceedings. But in Ext P3, it is stated that a lawyer has entered appearance and filed vakalath on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the O.P. According to the petitioner, he never engaged any lawyer to appear and defend him. In Ext P2, the petitioner requested to furnish the vakalath executed by the petitioner which is produced by the lawyer before the CDRF. But as per Ext P2(a), it is informed that the same is not available with the CDRF. The petitioner apprehends some malpractice that had taken place before the CDRF. Ext P4 and P5 will show that a nonbailable warrant is issued against the petitioner. Ext P6 will show that the notice in the Execution Petition was returned unserved. Thereafter warrant is issued as evident by Ext P7. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the CDRF are without notice to the petitioner and the orders are passed behind the back of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.