Jijo vs The Consumer Disputes Redressal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2639 Ker

WP(C) NO. 3833 OF 2017             1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 3833 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:

               JIJO
               AGED 33 YEARS
               S/O.CHACKO, (MANAGING DIRECTOR, VALLYARA TRADING AND
               SERVICE (P) LTD., RESIDING AT VALLYARA
               HOUSE,CHEMPUPURAM P.O., NEDUMUDI VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA
               DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT.C.G.BINDU
               SMT.C.G.AJITHA



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PAZHA VEEDU P.O.,ALAPPUZHA.

      2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA -1.

      3        T.P.SHAN
               SHANISHA,ARATTUVAZHI WARD, ALAPPUZHA,PROPRIETOR OF
               CLASSIC COIR FACTORY,VALAVANADU, ALAPPUZHA.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
               SRI.JAYAN.C.DAS, SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3833 OF 2017                2


                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No. 3833 of 2017
                    --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 11th day of March, 2022


                                JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to recall the warrant already issued against the petitioner;

b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent not to arrest the petitioner;

c) A writ of certiorari to call for the entire records pursuant to Exhibits-P3 and 4;

d) issue appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case;

And

e) To award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner. [SIC]

2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a

Company. According to the petitioner, he has not been made

as a party in Ext.P1 complaint, which is filed before the 1 st

respondent. It is a complaint filed by the 3 rd respondent. Based

on Ext.P1 complaint, Ext.P2 order was passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha on 31.5.2016.

When Ext.P3 execution petition was filed, the 1 st respondent

issued warrant to the petitioner. According to the petitioner,

the petitioner is not a party in Ext.P1 complaint and without

perusing the records, the 1st respondent issued warrant.

Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

3.2.2017, this Court passed the following order :

" Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 2nd respondent. Urgent notice by speed post to respondents 1 and 3, returnable in two weeks.

2. Any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to EA No.87/2016 in CC No.345/2015 of CDRF, Alappuzha will stand stayed for a period of one month.

3. Post after two weeks."

5. The above interim order was extended until further

orders on 15.3.2017. From that day onwards, this writ petition

is pending before this Court. The petitioner is in effect

challenging a warrant issued by the 1 st respondent. According

to the petitioner, he is not a party in Ext.P1 complaint and

therefore, the consequent order passed based on Ext.P1 as

evident by Ext.P2 will not stand against the petitioner. These

are matters to be agitated before the 1 st respondent by the

petitioner. For the purpose of agitating those contentions

before the 1st respondent, the warrant already issued by the 1 st

respondent can be quashed and the parties can be allowed to

approach the 1st respondent for appropriate relief. Even

though, it is an order passed by the Consumer Forum against

which there are remedies in the Consumer Protection Act,

taking into the facts and circumstances of the case and also

because of the pendency of the writ petition from 2017

onwards, I think the petitioner need not be relegated to

approach the State Forum against the orders passed by the

District Forum.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following

manner :

1) The warrant issued by the 1 st respondent in the execution

petition based on Ext.P2 order is quashed.

2) The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are free to approach the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha to

redress their grievance.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3833/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT C.C.NO.345/15 DATED 25.11.2015 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C.NO.345/2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.5.2016.

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE E.A.NO.87/2016 IN C.C.NO.345/2015 ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN E.A.NO.87/2016 DATED 5.1.2017 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 12.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT OF THE KERALA GOVERNMENT FOR VALLIYARA TRADING AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED EVIDENCING THAT RED BACK SYSTEMS, SOLUTIONS IS ONE OF ITS BRANCH.

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

RESPONDENT'S NIL EXHIBITS