S S DHILLON Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, against the order dated 30.4.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, in pursuance whereof notice of Contempt of Court Petition had been issued to the revision petitioner, the principal grievance of the petitioner is that the learned District Forum should have at least afforded an opportunity for implementing the order passed by the learned Forum by issuing a notice under Sec.25 of the Consumer Protection Act. In nutshell it is contended that instead of proceeding under Sec.27 of the said Act, the principles of natural justice and fair play required that first an opportunity under Sec.25 of the Act should have been afforded.

(2.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that though there is no legal bar in initiating proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act simultaneously, yet it is always appropriate and conducive to the interests of justice if before resorting to final action, an opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to explain as to why the direction issued earlier has not been implemented. The object being to have the order enforced instead of punishing the delinquent party. It would be also furthering the cause of justice if another direction is also issued to comply with the order if not already done, within a stipulated period, failing which the action under Sec.27 of the Act would be initiated. In view of this position, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order dated 30.4.1997, summoning the revision petitioner by entertaining the Contempt of Court Petition. The case is accordingly remitted back to the learned District Forum, Gurgaon, to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law expeditiously.