Dismissed

Indu Agarwal and Another v. U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Thru. Chairman Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024/1709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner invoked Article 227 jurisdiction seeking direction to execute a final order of the State Consumer Commission remaining unfulfilled for five years. The Court observed that the Commission is actively hearing the execution matter and has issued non-bailable warrants. Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant immediate interference, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the pe

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to approach the State Commission with an application regarding urgency.

Indu Agarwal and Another Vs U.P. State Consumer… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27998

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1709 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Indu Agarwal And Another Respondent :- U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Thru. Chairman Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Jaiswal,Adarsh Pratap Singh,Mandeep Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Adarsh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.

¶7

In light of the proposed order, notices to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are dispensed with.

¶8

Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow to execute its order dated 28.04.2017 passed for deciding Execution Case no. 3 of 2021 (Indu Agarwal and Another Vs. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. & Anr.).

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had booked a plot with private respondents in Megapolis Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd., Greater Noida and he had paid an amount of Rs. 14,47,200/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 32,16,000/-. It is stated that even after substantial length of time, no development was done in the said plot and being aggrieved by the action of the private respondents, the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission seeking transfer of title & possession of the aforesaid flat after its development and also sought compensation from respondent No. 2.

¶10

It has been submitted that the said complaint was decided along with bunch of cases by means of order dated 28.04.2017 with a direction to private respondents to complete the development work in the manner provided by the State Commission and directions were also issued to deliver the possession of the said plot to the allottee. It was further provided that in case of default complainants shall be at liberty to take fresh recourse against respondent No. 1 in accordance

¶11

with law.

¶12

It seems that the judgment of the State Commission dated 28.04.2017 was not complied with and consequently execution application was filed under Sections 71 & 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 11.01.2021 for execution of its order dated 28.04.2017. Notices have been issued to respondent No. 2 on which appearance has been put in on behalf of respondents on 13.08.2021 and sought time before the State Commission that the order would be complied with.

¶13

Despite the assurance made, the order of the State Commission has not been complied with and it is in the aforesaid circumstances, it has been informed that non-bailable warrant have also been issued to the respondents. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite non-bailable warrant having been issued, the same has not been complied with and till date the judgment of the State Commission has not been complied with.

¶14

It has further been stated that order dated 28.04.2017 has become final and no appeal has been filed before any forum. Order-sheet has also been annexed by the petitioners. From the perusal of the order-sheet indicates that the State Commission is hearing the matter on each date and passing necessary orders for compliance of the judgment of the State Commission and in that regard, the non-bailable warrants have been issued to the private respondents.

¶15

Apart from above appearance has also been put in on behalf of respondents. This Court does not find any reason for interference in the proceeding before the State Commission, at this stage considering that the matter is being actively dealt with by the State Commission on each date according to the ordersheet. Undoubtedly, the petitioners who have order in their favour from the State Commission since 2017 and the same has not been complied even after 5 years there is certain anxiety for expeditious disposal of the same. The order can be complied with only in accordance with law and sufficient powers have been given to State Commission under Section 71 & 72 of the Act of 1986 for compliance of the directions issued by the State Commission.

¶16

There is no extra-ordinary circumstances indicated by the petitioners in the present writ petition so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court would not in a routine manner interfere in the proceedings before the State Commission. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no ground made out by the petitioners for interference of this Court at this stage specially where the order-sheet indicates that the State

¶17

Commission is actively considering the grievance of the petitioner in the execution proceeding and also issued nonbailable warrants. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶18

However, it is provided in case the petitioners feels that there is certain urgency in the matter, he may move appropriate application before the State Commission and the State Commission would consider the said application and if they finds that there is certain urgency or there are certain other methods for execution of the order of the State Commission, they shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.4.2024 A. Verma

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indu Agarwal and Another v. U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Thru. Chairman Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Agarwal and Another v. U.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Thru. Chairman Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Darrshan Singh Vs Bhoodan Yogna Samiti Kheri .

Vinod Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Poonam Devi Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur, Sultanpur and Others

Nanhu vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 20 ,Barabanki and Another

Smt. Sangeeta Pandey and Another Vs Appellate Appointed Authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gonda and 4 Others

Ram Kumar Maurya Vs Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No 25 Barabanki and 3 Others