Colonel D.K. Singh Vs State Consumer Disputes… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2025)

Colonel D.K. Singh Vs State Consumer Disputes… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; however, the order dated 23.11.2024 issuing non-bailable warrants was quashed, the District Forum directed to execute the petitioner's decree expeditiously in accordance with law/CPC, and Execution Appeal No. 2 of 2025 preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority was rendered infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether an appeal lies before the State Consumer Forum against an order passed in execution (issuance of non-bailable warrants by the District Forum). +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's submission that the State Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order for issuance of non-bailable warrants was rejected: in terms of Section 47(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act and even under Section 47(1)(b), the State Forum is duly empowered to entertain an appeal against any order of the District Forum or to exercise power of revision.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 23.11.2024, whereby the non-bailable warrants were issued by the District Forum, is quashed.

Key takeaways

Since the complaint of 2010 was decreed in 2021, it was directed that the execution filed by the petitioner and pending before the District Forum shall be executed expeditiously in accordance with law, and shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the CPC with all expedition.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 by decree-holder Colonel D.K. Singh challenging the order dated 27.01.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (Lucknow) in Execution Appeal No. 2 of 2025 (filed against the District Forum's order dated 23.11.2024 issuing non-bailable warrants for execution of a decree of 2021 in a complaint of 2010). Held: under Section 47(1)(iii) and Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act the State Forum is duly empowered to entertain an appeal against any order of the District Forum or exercise revisional power, so the objection that no appeal lay against an execution-stage order was rejected and the writ petition dismissed. Nevertheless, the order dated 23.11.2024 issuing non-bailable warrants was quashed, and the District Forum was directed to execute the pending decree expeditiously in accordance with law and the provisions of the CPC; consequently, Execution Appeal No. 2 of 2025 preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority stood rendered infructuous. (Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Order dated 18.4.2025)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22145

Court No. - 6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1852 of 2025

Petitioner :- Colonel D.K. Singh Respondent :- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Shankar Srivastava,Dilip Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ratnesh Chandra

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Execution Appeal No. 2 of 2025. The said appeal was filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2024, whereby non bailable warrants were issued by the District Forum for execution of the award passed in favour of the petitioner.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no appeal lies against an order passed in execution before the State Consumer Forum. He further argues that in any case, there was no reason for passing the order dated 27.01.2025 whereby even the execution proceedings were stayed.

Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argues that the order impugned is an interlocutory order and does not require any interference at this stage. He further argues that State Commission or the District Commission has no power to issue non bailable warrant, as has been done.

Considering the said submission, the first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that

State Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against an order for issuance of non bailable warrant, cannot be accepted for the sole reason that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 47(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act and even under Section 47(1)(b), The State Forum is well and duly empowered to entertain an appeal against any order of the District Forum or can exercise power of revision under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act, thus to that extent, the submission deserves to be rejected. However, insofar as it stays the execution, the same deserves indulgence as the complaint was filed in the year 2010 and was decreed in the year 2021, it is directed that the execution as filed by the petitioner and pending before the District Forum shall be executed expeditiously in accordance with law. The order dated 23.11.2024, whereby the non bailable warrants were issued is also quashed. The execution shall proceed and shall be decided in accordance with provisions of the CPC with all expedition.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the order passed, the appeal preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority being Appeal No. 2 of 2025 is rendered infructuous.

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Arun

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench