SOMADHAN PROPERTIES Vs. PULAK KUMAR BERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order No. 14 dtd. 6/4/2021 passed by the learned presiding member of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in Execution application No. EA/79 of 2018 arising out of the Complaint Case No. CC/292/2015, present revisional application has been preferred. Petitioner contended that the opposite party herein filed complaint case No.CC/292/2015 before the Hon'ble West Bengal State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata and said complaint case was decreed against present petitioner on 19/2/2018 by the said Commission, Kolkata. The opposite party herein had filed the execution application being EA 79/2018 before the said commission and the commission vide order no. 3 dtd. 8/1/2019 was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against petitioner in said execution application no. 79/2018 and the said order is followed in order no. 5 dtd. 27/3/2019. The petitioner was accordingly arrested on 27/5/2019 and was produced before the commission and commission remanded the petitioner and on 29/5/2019 the commission was pleased to release the petitioner on PR Bond of Rs.5,00000.00. Subsequently petitioner was again arrested on 5/1/2019 and was produced before the commission and the commission again remanded the petitioner in custody. On 26/11/2019 the state commission was pleased to release the petitioner on PR Bond of Rs.50,00000.00. By the impugned order no. 14 dtd. 6/4/2021 the commission was pleased to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner arising out of the aforesaid complaint case no. CC 292/2015.

(2.) Mr. Pratip Mukherjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the commission did not consider the Covid-19 Pandemic situation and the nationwide lockdown which continued for more than 8 months during the first wave and also the situation arose during second wave. Continuous lockdown in the nation and out-break of pandemic Covid - 19, the Global economy was seriously affected and it was not possible for the petitioner to arrange for Rs.7,00000.00 in every two months . The commission without considering the said situation had mechanically proceeded to issue an order of warrant of arrest for production of the petitioner in satisfaction of the judgment and decree passed by the commission in CC 292/2015.

(3.) Mr. Pratip Mukherjee further submits that it is no more res integra that the Hon'ble State Commission has no power to issue a direction for issuance of warrant of arrest in view of judgment in WP No. 17282 (W) 2019 passed by this court and Hon'ble commission has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dtd. 6/4/2021. He further contended that the impugned order is bad in law as no opportunity was given to petitioner herein. In this context he also relied upon the observation made by this court in aforesaid Rajdeep Laha and others Vs. The State of West Bengal and others W.P. No. 17282 (W)/2019.