ESTATE OFFICER HUDA Vs. NIRMAL CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, wherein, it has been recorded that on 23.5.2005 on Mr. Shiv Lal, Assistant, HUDA, office, Sonepat has appeared on behalf of Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat and has made a statement that compliance of the order would be done and has sought adjournment for doing the same. The case was accordingly adjourned to 23.11.2005. From the impugned order, it transpires that District Forum recorded his statement and despite the time given, compliance of the order passed has not been done. Learned Counsel representing the appellant has assailed this order primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the non-bailable warrants have illegally been issued against Mr. Shiv Lal, Assistant, HUDA, Sonepat who was representative of the Estate Officer, Sonepat and was not a party to the execution petition. He has also contended that the District Forum has issued bailable warrants against Estate Officer, without any justified ground as the Counsel representing the Estate Officer was present. He has also pointed out that though the order was announced in open Court but no date has been mentioned below the word announced in open Court and for that reasons it suffers from illegality.

(2.) We had pertinently asked the learned Counsel for the appellant to inform us as to what transpired after the application dated 18.5.2005 was moved by the complainant, wherein he has averred that despite the direction given in the main order dated 30.3.2005 to make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of the order i. e. , 30.3.2005, the compliance of the order has not been done by the opposite party consisting of Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat and Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. Accordingly, he has prayed in that application that the necessary contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents as provided under the law to meet the ends of the justice. However, the learned Counsel for appellant has not been able to give the necessary details, but at the same time insisted that the impugned order itself shows the illegality committed by the District Forum, which deserves to be set aside.

(3.) We are at loss to find out whether after the application for execution of the order dated 30.3.2005 was moved on 18.5.2005, what order was passed by the District Forum to insure the compliance of the order dated 30.3.2005? It is the duty of the appellant to inform us as to whether the District Forum, at the first instance, had issued notice to the opposite party and given time to comply with the order and what action was taken by the opposite party in answer to the notice received.