HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE INDIA PVT LTD Vs. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U P LUCKNOW AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sanjeev Singh for the petitioner. Since the matter is being finally disposed of, the issuance of notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby exempted. The present writ petition has been filed on the alleged action of the District Consumer Redressal Forum by which it has directed for recovery of certain amount as per its order dated 09.05.2008. In paragraph 16 of the affidavit filed with the writ petition, it has been stated that due to very short span of time available to the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to obtain the certified copies of the relevant orders passed either by the District Forum or passed by the State Commission on 02.06.2009 and have sought leave by this Court to entertain this petition in absence of the aforesaid orders in view of the urgency involved in the case and it has further been stated that the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in view of the fact that the Police Officers have already visited him. This Court would not have entertained the petition in absence of any order but has proceeded to hear the petition only on account of the fact that earlier this Court in respect of the same dispute had passed order/judgment dated 05.09.2008 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4328 (M/S) of 2008, Hyundai Merchant Marine India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow. This Court in the said petition vide order dated 05.09.2008 had directed the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to consider the matter of stay against the order of the District Forum dated 09.05.2008 without insisting upon deposit of Rs. 12,00,000/- as directed by it and since the matter was likely to be taken up by the State Commission on 20th October, 2008, this Court stayed the operation of the order of the District Forum dated 09.05.2008 till 25th October, 2008. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has not been able to decide the stay application of the petitioner till date and it is also alleged that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for the stay application not being decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 9 of the writ petition in which the reason has been shown why the case could not be taken up by the State Commission. Paragraph 9 of the writ petition is quoted hereinunder: "That it is relevant to state that on the next date fixed i.e. 20th October, 2008, the said Appeal was not shown in the cause list of the even date consequently it could not be taken up. Thereafter the Appeal was listed on 07th January, 2009 on which date also it could not be taken up as the concerned Bench was not holding Court and the Appeal was posted for 24th February, 2009. On 24th February, 2009 again the appeal could not be taken up due to strike of the Lawyers in all the Courts and, as such, general dates in all the cases were fixed and thus the Appeal has been posted for 27th August, 2009, as such, the Appeal could not be taken up and heard in compliance of the order dated 05th September, 2008, passed by this Hon'ble Court for the said unavoidable reasons." Earlier this Court had interfered in the matter and had directed the State Commission to decide the stay application and since the stay application was likely to be considered on 20th October, 2008 it stayed the operation of the order of the District Forum dated 09.05.2008 till 25th October, 2008. The whole idea was that the State Commission shall consider the stay application of the petitioner. But since that could not be done within the expected time, the District Forum is proceeding to recover the amount as per its direction dated 09.05.2008. Now, therefore, the interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the State Commission to consider the interim application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it in terms of the earlier judgment/order dated 05.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 4328 (M/S) of 2008 and till the State Commission considers and passes appropriate orders on the interim application of the petitioner, the operation of the order of the State Forum dated 09.05.2008 shall be kept in abeyance. An undertaking has been given by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not take any adjournment before the State Commission to enable it to decide the interim application within the time frame prescribed by this Court. It is expected that the State Commission shall consider and decide the interim application of the petitioner in the light of the earlier order of this Court dated 05.09.2008. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally.