2.It is the case of the petitioner that there was a Franchisee agreement between them and the third respondent. According to the petitioner, under the Franchisee agreement, any dispute or difference arising out of the agreement will have to be decided only by the Court at Chennai. However, according to the petitioner, only through the impugned notice dated 28.06.2004 issued by the second respondent, they came to know that the District Consumer Forum, Shahjahenpur, Uttar Pradesh has passed an order against the petitioner in favour of the third respondent for a sum of Rs.1,04,667/-. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after the receipt of the impugned notice dated 28.06.2004, they verified with the Consumer Forum and found that an exparte award has been passed against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice was received by the petitioner in the Consumer Court proceedings otherwise they would have defended the claim made by the third respondent before the Consumer Forum against them. It is also their case that it is only the third respondent who owed money to them under the Franchisee agreement and no money is due and payable by them to the third respondent. Under such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 28.06.2004 issued by the second respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act.
