N.BASUMATRI vs D.TAYE

CONSIDERING the urgency of the matter and as the State Commission is not sitting due to long vacation, this petition has been taken up today in the Chambers of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jorhat. The matter was mentioned by Mr. A.Thakur before the learned the District Judge, who after obtaining permission from me fixed this item for hearing.

HEARD learned Counsel Mr. A. Thakur for the petitioner and also heard the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, Jorhat, the Superintendent District Jail, Jorhat and the Prosecuting Inspector of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge. It is not necessary to mention the information in detail which were obtained from the above officers except the fact that the petitioner was arrested without any Warrant of Arrest and has been kept in Jail without any custody warrant issued by a Competent Court of Law. The Officer-in-charge and the Superintendent District Jail have admitted that such a procedure was never followed earlier. Briefly stated facts as follows : - "The President of the District Forum, Hisar in Complaint Case No. 519/93 passed the impugned custody warrant dated 17.9.93 asking the Superintendent District/Central Jail, Jorhat to keep Mr. N. Basumatari, Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Jorhat in custody as he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The Superintendent of the District/Central Jail, Jorhat was also authorised to take Shri Basumatari into the custody."

A letter was also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat dated 17.9.93 by the President of the above District Forum to arrest the petitioner Shri Basumatari and hand him over to the Superintendent District/Central Jail, Jorhat. There is an endorsement in the said letter asking the Superindent Officer-in-Charge of Jorhat Police Station to execute the Warrant of Arrest and to take necessary action. The Officer-in-Charge has stated that this order was passed by Dy.S.P. and not by the Superintendent of Police. The order was signed on 13.9.93. The Officer-in-Charge has also informed that from the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat a reminder was also sent to him on 8th October, 1993 and copy of the reminder has been made available.

SHRI Basumatari was taken into custody on the 19th October, at about 10 a.m. in persuance of the above order signed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. It is not disputed that no order was passed either by the learned Sessions Judge or by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate either for arrest of Mr. Basumatari or keeping him in the custody as stated above. The first question is whether this Commission has jurisdiction in this matter. I may refer to Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short the Act, which runs as follows : - "Enforcement of Orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.- Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the Court within the local limit of whose jurisdiction : - (a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or (b) in the case of an order against any other person the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain is situated, and thereupon, the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution".

Reading Section 25 of the above Act it is absolutely clear that if the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum is unable to execute any order passed the above authorities shall send to the Court within local limit of whose jurisdiction, a person, inter alia, against whom any order is passed resides (emphasis supplied).

AS would appear from the statement of Objects and reasons of the Act the authorities such as State Commission etc. created by the Act are Quasi-judicial bodies and I can take judicial notice of the fact that such authorities do not have the machinery to enforce its orders and therefore even within its own jurisdiction, orders passed may have to be sent to either Criminal Courts or Civil Courts constituted under normal laws like Cr.F.C. or the Civil Courts Act. For execution of any order within its own jurisdiction such order may have to be sent to District Forum of the State and if the order has to be executed in some other State it has to be sent to the concerned District Forum or the State Commission of the concerned State. I am further of the opinion that such order for enforcement may be sent preferably to the Stale Commission, as a District Forum of one State may not know under the jurisdiction of which District Forum of another State a particular person is residing or any property is located. Therefore the District Forum of Hisar was expected to send the order passed for execution either to the State Commission, Assam or the District Forum, Jorhat. The word "Court" occurring in Section 25 of the Act also includes apart from the normal Courts also the State Commission and/or District Forums of a State, I say so as, in my opinion under the scheme of the Act, a State Commission and a District Forum have to be included within the meaning of word "Court" to keep a harmonious relation of the authorities to provide speedy remedy. After an order passed by the State Commission or the District Forum is received by State Commission or District Forum of another District or State, such order has to be executed normally through Civil or Criminal Courts within the jurisdiction of the State Commission or District Forum.

AS the case in hand the order was sent by the District Forum, Hisar directly and not through the District Forum, Jorhat I hold, in view of what has been stated above, that there was violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

ACCORDING to Mr. Thakur, the custody warrant ought to have been signed by the President and one more Member as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. I find force in the submission of the learned Counsel and I, therefore, hold that the impugned warrant is bad in law. I keep the question open as to whether any warrant of arrest can be issued by the State Commission or District Forum. For the reasons stated above I hold that the impugned order is bad in law as it was not signed as required u/Sec. 14(2) of the Act and also for the reason the order was sent directly to the Superintendent of Police, who also did not pass order by himself.

The procedure followed by normal Courts both Civil and Criminal for execution of orders outside the jurisdiction has to be followed by the authorities under the Act. Apart from the legal procedure this has to be done to maintain judicial discipline and the basis principle of law that a Court or any other judicial body has to exercise jurisdiction within its local limit.

NOW the question is whether I should set aside the said warrant or as prayed for by Mr. Thakur release Shri Basumatari to appear either before State Commission Haryana or the District Forum, Hisar within a time limitation fixed by this Commission. After considering the matter in depth I am of the opinion that present petitioner may appear either before the State Commission, Haryana or the District Forum, Hisar in person or through a Counsel to enable him to make suitable prayer before the State Commission or the District Forum within a period of one month. However, same condition has to be laid down and accordingly I direct that Shri N. Basumatari shall execute a P.R. bond of Rs. 5000/- before the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-President, District Forum, Jorhat giving an undertaking that he shall appear or take steps either before the State Commission, Haryana or the District Forum, Hisar within one month from today. I further direct that on such execution of the bond the petitioner Mr. N. Basumatari shall be released from the custody immediately.

BEFORE parting with record I may state that according to Mr. Thakur the Vacation Bench of the Hon''ble High Court sitting at Guwahati has already granted bail to the petitioner in this matter. With the above directions and observations the petition is allowed and the Sheristadar of the District Forum shall send this record to the Registrar of the State Commission. The petition shall be placed before the Commission on 8.11.93 for final disposal. Complaint allowed.