JUDGMENT 1. - This intra court Appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.11.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur ('the District Forum') and orders dated 05.03.2008 and 07.05.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('the State Commission') and initiation of penalty proceedings and orders therein was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief may be noticed thus-the respondent No.4- complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act') before the District Forum against the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur ('UIT'). The District Forum found the UIT guilty of deficiency in service and ordered for delivery of vacant physical possession of plots No.248, 249, 357, 404 and 423 to the complainant and if on account of encroachment on the said plots or for any other reason the possession could not be handed over, then at the same location, the complainant be allotted plots of same dimensions and their vacant physical possession be handed over. The District Forum further awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and imposed cost of Rs. 1,500/-. Further directions were issued to the Divisional Commissioner to hold departmental inquiry to find out as to on account of negligence of which officer/employee, the vacant physical possession of the plots could not be handed over to the allottee and the amount of compensation and cost could be recovered from such guilty employees in proportion to their guilt. 3. The judgment of the District Forum dated 25.11.2006 was challenged before the State Commission by UIT and the State Commission by its order dated 05.03.2008, dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. We are also informed that the revision filed by the UIT before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ('the National Commission') was also dismissed by order dated 15.04.2010 and Special Leave Petition filed by the UIT was dismissed on 06.09.2010 by the Supreme Court. 4. The subject matter of the present special appeal is the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the Act by the complainant for punishing the officers of the UIT for failure to comply with the orders passed by the Forum/Commission. The proceedings under Section 27 of the Act were initiated on 18.04.2007 against one P.R. Pandat, the then Secretary of the UIT. The proceedings under Section 27 of the Act were initiated on 18.04.2007 against one P.R. Pandat, the then Secretary of the UIT. The District Forum by its order dated 18.04.2007 took cognisance and ordered issuance of notice. Where after on 26.05.2007 when application for exemption from personal presence was filed by the said P.R. Pandat, the same was rejected and he was directed to be summoned by bailable warrants; on the same day, an application was filed along with name and address of the newly appointed Secretary and amended cause title, on which, notice was issued. On 21.06.2007, P.R. Pandat and Krishna Kunal, the newly appointed Secretary were present, Krishna Kunal prayed for time for compliance of the judgment and was granted two months' time, qua P.R. Pandat, summary of charge was read and explained, which charge was denied; on 19.09.2007, stay order passed by the State Commission was produced; on 04.04.2008, complainant filed copy of the order of the State Commission; where after the District Forum ordered the counsel for the complainant to implead the present incumbent Secretary as party; on 11.04.2008, counsel for the complainant filed amended cause title and prayed for impleadment of the incumbent Secretary along with application and affidavit; the District Forum ordered for summoning P.R. Pandat and Krishna Kunal by bailable warrants and ordered for issuance of notice to respondent No.3 i.e. present appellant P. Ramesh; on 28.04.2008 all the three respondents were present, it was noticed that in the past, charges under Section 27 of the Act had been framed against P.R. Pandat, appellant and Krishna Kunal were heard on the charges. It was noticed that the judgment dated 25.11.2006 was to be complied with within a period of one month and, therefore, prima facie, it was proved from the record that the same has not been complied with and, therefore, there was sufficient ground for framing the charges against the appellant P. Ramesh and Krishna Kunal. The charges were denied and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings. 5. The appellant P.Ramesh, filed revision against the order dated 28.04.2008, which revision was dismissed by the State Commission summarily by its order dated 07.05.2008. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the interlocutory orders dated 28.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 passed by the District Forum do not require any interference. 5. The appellant P.Ramesh, filed revision against the order dated 28.04.2008, which revision was dismissed by the State Commission summarily by its order dated 07.05.2008. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the interlocutory orders dated 28.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 passed by the District Forum do not require any interference. After noticing the orders passed by the District Forum, it was held that the petitioner-appellant has full opportunity to put up defence before the District Forum and the initiation of proceedings cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Ultimately it was held as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/s, Mr. Anil Bhandari, this Court also does not find any ground to interfere with these impugned interlocutory orders in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by this Court, as the contempt proceedings against the petitioner/s are still pending before the District Consumer Forum itself and whatever valid defence the petitioners want to take in the contempt proceedings, they are free to do so before the District Consumer Forum itself. There is no ground available to the petitioner/s seeking interference of this Court in the present writ petition against such interlocutory orders of a competent court/District Consumer Forum." 6. It is submitted by learned Advocate General that the appellant P. Ramesh joined as Secretary on 28.02.2008 and on the said date, there was stay of the judgment dated 25.11.2006 passed by the State Commission; the appeal was dismissed on 05.03.2008 and on 11.04.2008, the notices were issued to the appellant without passing any order to implead him as a party and on 28.04.2008, the charge was framed. It is submitted that under Section 24 of the Act, it is only if no appeal is preferred against the order of the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, that such order becomes final and unless the order becomes final, proceedings under Section 27 of the Act for penalty cannot be initiated and as the proceedings were initiated when the appeal was still pending, the order passed by the District Forum taking cognisance cannot be sustained. It was also submitted that no notice or copy of the petition was served upon the appellant even at the time the charges were framed, the appellant was not even aware of the dispute and, therefore, the cognisance was taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. It was submitted that the appellant would be made to face penalty proceedings for no reason and, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum and the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. 8. Reliance was placed on C.V. Ratnam v. Union of India & Ors.:2002 (108) Company Cases 469 and Maytas Properties Limited v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission : AIR 2013 AP 93 . 9. Vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the submissions made by counsel for the appellant are essentially in defence to the penalty proceedings initiated by the District Forum and the said defence shall have to be examined by the Forum and the writ petition questioning the validity of initiation of proceedings was, therefore, rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the Act provides for trial of the offences under the Act summarily and the District Forum has been conferred with the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, the provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C. does not envisage any issuance of notice and/or hearing the respondent before cognisance is taken and, therefore, the orders impugned do not call for any interference. It was also submitted that the appeal under Section 27-A of the Act has been provided, which remedy would be available to the appellant and there is no cause for the appellant to challenge the interlocutory orders and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submissions made on either side. 11. It would be appropriate to quote the orders which were passed by the Tribunal and were made subject matter of challenge in the revision before the State Commission and in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 10. We have considered the submissions made on either side. 11. It would be appropriate to quote the orders which were passed by the Tribunal and were made subject matter of challenge in the revision before the State Commission and in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The orders read as under:- 11-04-08 odqyk; i{kdkjku mifLFkrA odhy izkFkhZ us la'kksf/kr 'kh"kZd i= is'k fd;k o orZeku inLFkkfir lfpo dk uke tksM+us dk fuosnu fd;k o bl vk'k; dh nj0 o 'kiFk i= is'k fd;kA vizkFkhZ la[;k 1] 2 xSj gkftj gS ftUgs 5000&5000 ds ch0@MCY;w0 ls ryc fd;k tkosA vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds uksfVl is'k gksus ij rkehy tkjh gksA i=koyh okLrs rych rk0 vk;Unk 28-04-08 dks is'k gksA ,l0Mh@& 28-04-08 izkFkhZ mifLFkrA odqyk; vizkFkhZ mifLFkrA vizkFkhZ ih0vkj0 iaMr] d'".k dq.kky ,oa ih0 jes'k mifLFkrA iwoZ esa Jh ih0vkj0 iaMr dks /kkjk 27 lh0ih0,0 ds rgr lkjka'k vkjksi lquk;k tk pqdk gSA vkt vizkFkhZ d'".k dq.kky ,oa ih0 jes'k ds ckjs esa /kkjk 27 lh0ih0,0 ds lkjka'k vkjksi ckcr~ lquk x;kA fu.kZ; fnukad 25-11-06 dh ikyuk ,d ekg vFkkZr 25-12-06 rd dh tkuh Fkh ysfdu vfHkys[k ls izFke n'"V;k izdV gksrk gS fd mDr ikyuk ckotwn blds fd vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk dh vihy jkT; vk;ksx ls [kkfjt gks pqdh] ugha dh xbZ gSA vr% izFke n'"V;k /kkjk 27 lh0ih0,0 dh Iyh lqukus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj gSA loZ Jh d'".k dq.kky Hkw0iw0 lfpo] ;w0vkbZ0Vh0 rFkk ih0 jes'k orZeku lfpo dks /kkjk 27 lh0ih0,0 ds rgr lkjka'k vkjksi lquk;k tkrk gS fd mudh ;w0vkbZ0Vh0 lsdzsVjh dh rSukrh dh vof/k esa mUgksaus mDr fu.kZ; dh ikyuk ugha dh ,oa ikyuk djus esa vlQy jgs] vr% os crk,a fd vkjksi Lohdkj djrs gS ;k vUoh{kk pkgrs gSA mUgksaus vkjksi vLohdkj dj vUoh{kk pkghA lejh izkslM~;ksj ds rgr okLrs lcwr izkFkhZ i{k rk0 29-04-08 dks is'k gksA ekeyk iqjkuk ,oa xaHkhj izrhr gksrk gSA vr% ;FkklaHko Ms Vw Ms csfll ij lquokbZ gksxhA ,l0Mh@& 29-04-08 ifjoknh Lo;a e; odhy mifLFkrA vizkFkhZ loZ Jh ih0vkj0 iaMr] feLVj ih0 jes'k mifLFkrA Jh d'".k dq.kky mifLFkr ughaA mudh rjQ ls vkt dh gkftjh ekQh tfj;s Jh Jo.k vks>k ,MoksdsV ds izLrqr gqbZA vizkFkhZ Jh ih0vkj0 iaMr dh vksj ls vf/koDrk Jh vfuy Hk.Mkjh mifLFkr ftUgksaus viuk odkyrukek izLrqr fd;kA ifjoknh i{k dh vksj ls vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ek0 jkT; vk;ksx esa izLrqr dh x;h vihy dk vihy eheks dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dh tks layXu i=koyh jgsA vkt ls izdj.k lejh izkslht ds rgr ifjoknh i{k dh lk{; ds fy;s lqfuf'pr gSA ifjoknh y{e.k [ksrkuh mifLFkr gSA ftuds c;ku eq[; ijh{k.k vkjEHk fd;s x;sA Jh Jo.k vkS>k ,MoksdsV us izkFkZuk dh fd ftjg ds fy;s mUgsa vkbZUnk volj fn;k tkosA bl chp Jh vfuy Hk.Mkjh us izkFkhZ Jh ih0vkj0 iaMr dh vksj ls mifLFkr gksdj vkt mPp U;k;ky; esa jsQjsal gksus ds dkj.k dk;Zokgh LFkfxr djus dh izkFkZuk dhA eq[; ijh{k.k rn~uqlkj fjtoZ j[kk x;kA i=koyh okLrs iwjs gksus c;ku ifjoknh i{k o vU; dksbZ lk{; tks ifjoknh i{k izLrqr djuk pkgs] mlds fy;s vkbZUnk rkjh[k 07-05-2008 dks is'k gksA ml fnu vizkFkhZx.k lHkh gkftj jgsA ftu vizkFkhZx.k us tekur eqpyds vHkh Hkh ugha fy;s gq, gS] os vkbZUnk rkjh[k dks Qksje ds vkns'kkuqlkj vius tekur eqpyds izLrqr djsA ,l0Mh@& 12. A perusal of the order-sheet dated 11.04.2008 reveals that though the complainant filed application for impleadment of the appellant and filed amended cause title, the Forum did not pass any order on the said application and ordered issuance of notice to the present appellant - P. Ramesh. It is not clear from the order-sheet as to whether the notice of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act was ordered to be issued or that of the application seeking impleadment, was ordered to be issued. Thereafter on 28.04.2008, without even waiting for reply and/or providing any opportunity in this regard, the appellant - P. Ramesh along with Krishna Kunal, another respondent was heard on the charges and for the reason indicated in the order i.e. that despite dismissal of the appeal, the order passed by the Forum has not been complied with, the appellant was charged, and on denial the matter was adjourned for further proceedings. 13. From the perusal of the above order-sheets, it is apparent that in so far as the appellant - P. Ramesh is concerned, he was not accorded any opportunity of hearing by the Forum before the charges were framed, except at the moment of framing of the charge as to whether the appellant accepted the same or not. 14. A Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of C.V. Ratnam (supra) while dealing with the procedure and provisions of Section 27 of the Act, observed and held as under:- "42. Section 27 should not be read in isolation, it should be read in conjunction with Section 25. The provisions of Section 25 or for that matter Section 27 can be taken recourse to only when the order becomes final. As noticed hereinbefore, against the order of District Forum at least two appeals have been provided for whereas against the orders of the State Commission and the National Commission one appeal is provided. 43. All objections to the liability of the opposite party therein would, therefore, be completely adjudicated by the District Forums and/or State Commission or by the appellate authority, as the case may be. Even, as noticed hereinbefore, a right of judicial review can be taken recourse to. Only when an order becomes final, Section 25 and 27 would come into play. 46. Even, as noticed hereinbefore, a right of judicial review can be taken recourse to. Only when an order becomes final, Section 25 and 27 would come into play. 46. We may further observe that the Court while taking recourse to Section 27 of the Act, unless the Forum or the Commission comes to the conclusion that the action on the part of the defaulter is dishonest and intentional, it may not inflict the penalty. 48. It may be true that the said provision does not lay down a detailed procedure but, as indicated hereinbefore, having regard to the provisions contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, as principles of natural justice are to be complied with, the authorities are under an obligation to adopt such procedure which must be fair and reasonable. It is now a well settled principle of law that the principles of natural justice must be read in every statute unless there exists any statutory interdict." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. Further following the judgment in the case of C.V. Ratnam (supra) in Maytas Properties Limited (supra), the principles laid down in the case of C.V. Ratnam (supra) were reiterated. 16. In view of above state of affairs regarding the issuance of notice and framing of charge against the appellant, the District Forum has failed to comply with the requirements of principles of natural justice. 17. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent based on provisions of Section 251 Cr.P.C., which provides for trial of summons cases are concerned, it is well settled that where the accused, in response to summons, appears before the Court/Forum and raises objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint, the Court/Forum should decide the same before taking any further steps. It is also well settled that before asking the accused whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, sufficient opportunity has to be afforded to him to acquaint himself as to what the prosecution case against him is or understand the same, take legal advice and prepare himself either to claim a trial to defend or take a decision to plead guilty. 18. 18. In view of the fact that essentially no opportunity was granted to the appellant by the Forum to understand the prosecution case, prepare himself in this regard, the submissions made by counsel for the respondent cannot be countenanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the case of the appellant - P. Ramesh with that of P.R. Pandat, who stood on a different footing, by the impugned judgment, rejected the writ petition only on account of the fact that the same was against the interlocutory order without examining the matter from the perspective of following the principles of natural justice by the District Forum and as such the same cannot be sustained. 20. So far as the submission based on judgments in the case of C.V. Ratnam (supra) and Maytas Properties Limited (supra) regarding maintainability of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act, during the pendency of the appeal are concerned, admittedly the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission on 05.03.2008 and the cognisance was taken by the District Forum on 28.04.2008 when the appeal was not pending. There is no material on record to indicate the date of filing of the revision petition before the National Commission and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order dated 28.04.2008 was passed against the appellant while the proceedings were pending before the Appellate/Revisional Forum. Merely because after the order is passed on an application under Section 27 of the Act and thereafter an appeal/revision is filed, the same would not vitiate the order passed while no proceedings were pending. 21. In view of the above discussion, the special appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8633/2009 is set aside, the orders dated 28.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 passed by the District Forum qua the appellant P. Ramesh and the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the State Commission are quashed and set aside.No order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******