The Acting Chief Justice dismissed a writ appeal against the Single Judge's decision to reject a petition seeking enforcement of a consumer forum order via a bailable warrant. The court upheld that the Writ Court cannot function as an executing court.
The writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1249 OF 2012
Dt: 10.10.2012.
Between: V. Amarender .. APPELLANT AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and another.
.. RESPONDENTS
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1249 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble single Judge passed on 18.6.2012 in W.P.No.16789 of 2012, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not producing the 2nd respondent for violating the orders made in E.A.No.49 of 2011 in C.C.No.1040 of 2010 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to produce the 2nd respondent as he happens to be a habitual offender.
The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the Writ Court cannot act as an Executing Court for the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Further, his Lordship has specifically stated that if the 1st respondent violated the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach that Court as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this writ appeal tried to convince us that the bailable warrant, which has been issued in the matter in question has to be given effect to.
In our opinion, the Hon’ble single Judge has correctly expressed his Lordship’s mind stating that the Writ Court cannot be treated as an Executing Court. In these circumstances, it appears to us that the order so passed by his Lordship does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
In view of that, this writ appeal has no merit. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )
(VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
)
Dt: 10.10.2012. Tnb/Msr
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.1249 OF 2012
(Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
Dt: 10.10.2012. (Msr)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court can act as an executing court for orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
V. Amarender
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad
Another
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
