BALDEV CHAND BANSAL Vs. RAJESH KUMAR NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeal executions are directed against the order of the State Commission dated 14.6.2019 whereby the State Commission directed as under:-

(2.) The consumer complaints were decided by the State Commission on 7.2.2017. It is an admitted position that the order passed by the State Commission remains uncomplied till today though about two and a half years from the said order have already expired. The State commission has directed attachment of the property of the Managing Director of the company in terms of Section 72 of Punjab Land Revenue Act. Though in terms of Section 25(3) of the C.P. Act, the State Commission was required only to issue a Recovery Certificate to the concerned Collector requiring him to recover the amount payable to the consumers as arrears of land revenue and thereafter it was for the Collector to execute the Recovery Certificate, considering that the order passed by the State Commission directs attachment only in terms of the Section 72 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, the said order does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, when admittedly the order passed in the consumer complaints still remains uncomplied.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant may be given some time to consider giving an undertaking to comply with the order passed by the State Commission. If the appellant is ready to give such an undertaking, he will be at liberty to make an appropriate application to the State Commission alongwith his undertaking and it will be for the State Commission to then consider the application and pass an appropriate order on it.