Shivgarh Resort Ltd. vs State of U.P.and Others

Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Ranjan, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2.

The petitioner has alleged that being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Varanasi by which the complaints preferred by the opposite parties No.4 and 5 were allowed, the petitioner has filed the appeals before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow, which have been registered as Appeals No.955 of 2008 and 956 of 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties No.4 and 5 have moved the execution application before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Varanasi and on the basis of which the impugned demand notices, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 have been issued. He further submits that on 29.7.2008 the petitioner moved an application for interim relief in Appeals No.955 of 2008 and 956 of 2008 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow which have been preferred against the orders dated 21.4.2008 and 11.4.2007 but the application has not been disposed of. He further submits that in the appeals the next date is fixed 14.2.2009 and in spite of the application dated 11.8.2008 moved by the petitioner no early date has been fixed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties No.4 and 5 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has already preferred the appeals before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow and also moved the application for stay.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

It is admitted case of the parties that against the orders dated 21.4.2008 and 11.4.2007 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Varanasi, statutory appeals have been preferred by the petitioner before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow, which have been registered as Appeals No.955 of 2008 and 956 of 2008 in which the petitioner has already moved the application for interim relief, which is pending before the appellate authority for consideration. In spite of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred the appeals before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Varanasi, is proceeding in the matter on an application moved by the opposite parties No.4 and 5 for execution of the order dated 21.4.2008. It is settled law of this Court that during the pendency of the appeal order having civil consequences should be suspended. Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that every order of a District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final.

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite party No.3 to consider and decide the stay application moved by the petitioner in Appeals No.955 of 2008 and 956 of 2008 at an early date and till the stay application is disposed of by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow, the impugned demand notices, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition shall remain stayed.

The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow shall take appropriate action against the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Varanasi, who has proceeded against the petitioner in spite of the fact that he has already availed a statutory remedy of appeal.

(Ordered accordingly)