Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 843 (AP)

Shaik Allabakshu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-07-09

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, SUMATHI JAGADAM

body2025
Order : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. The petitioner herein is the Managing Director of a company named ‘Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited’ which is involved in real estate business. The said company is said to have made a lay out of land in certain survey numbers of Vankayalapadu village of Pattipadu Mandal, Guntur District. These plots were offered for sale and various members of the public had entered into agreements for purchasing these plots and paid substantial amounts of money towards the purchase of these plots. However, neither the company nor the petitioner herein was completing the transactions by execution of necessary documents. The purchasers, contending that the company had never even purchased the land which is sought to be made into plots, had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur for compensation and refund of the amounts already paid to M/s. Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited. The respondents in these consumer cases were the petitioner described as a director of M/s. Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited and his wife who was also described as a director of Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited. 2. These consumer cases, more specifically C.C.No.13 of 2019, C.C.No.20 of 2019 and C.C.No.32 of 2019 were allowed with directions to the opposite parties therein, to refund the sale consideration paid out by the complainant and to pay compensation and Costs. The said amounts being payable by within four weeks from the date of the order. As these orders were not complied, the consumers filed Penalty Petitions 4 to 6 of 2022 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. 3. It appears that initially some steps were taken for arriving at a compromise in the matter. However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur by an order, dated 20.07.2022, had taken the petitioner herein into custody and forwarded the petitioner to the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C with a further remand warrant being addressed to the Superintendant, District Jail, Guntur for detaining the petitioner in the custody of the jail Superintendant till 03.08.2022. The custody order was passed by way of a common order in P.P.No.4 of 2022 in C.C.No.13 of 2019, P.P.No.5 of 2022 in C.C.No.20 of 2019 and P.P.No.6 of 2022 in C.C.No.32 of 2019. The custody order was passed by way of a common order in P.P.No.4 of 2022 in C.C.No.13 of 2019, P.P.No.5 of 2022 in C.C.No.20 of 2019 and P.P.No.6 of 2022 in C.C.No.32 of 2019. Thereafter, the other affected parties, who had already approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur against the petitioner and his wife had filed separate P.Ps for detention of the petitioner. These P.Ps are P.P.Nos.17 to 42 of 2019, 45 to 65 of 2022 and P.P.Nos.72 to 84 of 2022. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by his detention in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur from 20.07.2022 has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. Sri G. Sri Harsha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur did not have any power of detaining the petitioner for such a prolonged period and in any event, the power that is said to have been exercised under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C would have to be set aside on the ground that it has not followed the required procedure and has been passed without the conditions set out in Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being complied. 6. After notice, the respondents 4 to 6 had been served with notice and Sri K.L. Ganesh Raghavendra has filed vakalat for them. 7. Heard Sri G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K.L. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6. 8. As the circumstances in which the petitioner had been kept under detention and the circumstances in which such detention had been extended from time to time were not clear, this Court had summoned the record in relation to P.P.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022, C.C.No.13 of 2019, C.C.No.20 of 2019 and C.C.No.32 of 2019. 9. The available material shows that C.C.No.13 of 2019 came to be disposed of on 30.08.2019 directing the petitioner and his wife to refund sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% per annum from 05.04.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and payment of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint. 10. 9. The available material shows that C.C.No.13 of 2019 came to be disposed of on 30.08.2019 directing the petitioner and his wife to refund sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% per annum from 05.04.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and payment of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint. 10. C.C.No.20 of 2019 was disposed of by an order, dated 30.08.2019, directing the petitioner and his wife to pay to refund sale consideration of Rs.1,71,612/- with interest @12% per annum from 30.11.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and payment of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint. 11. C.C.No.32 of 2019 was disposed of by an order, dated 30.08.2019, directing the petitioner and his wife to pay to refund sale consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- with interest @12% per annum from 30.11.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and payment of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint. 12. In C.C.No.13 of 2019, Penalty Petition No.4 of 2022 came to be filed on 02.11.2021 contending that the petitioner and his wife had failed to comply with the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. The Commission after taking his petition on file initiated process on 26.04.2022, matter was posted to 11.05.2022 and 27.06.2022. On 27.06.2022 a prayer was made for issuance of warrants against the petitioner and his wife for not appearing before the reddressal commission. On 20.07.2022, the petitioner was produced before the Commission, by a police constable of Pattabhipuram Police Station, in execution of the warrant issued on 27.06.2022. On that date, the Commission remanded the petitioner for 14 days up to 03.08.2022 with a direction to produce the petitioner on 03.08.2022 at 11.30 a.m. On 03.08.2022, the remand was extended till 16.08.2022. The matter again came up on 16.08.2022 when the petitioner was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and his remand was extended for a further period of 14 days. The matter underwent various adjournments when the remand of the petitioner was extended from time to time. The orders passed in P.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 are identical orders, passed on the same dates. 13. The matter underwent various adjournments when the remand of the petitioner was extended from time to time. The orders passed in P.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 are identical orders, passed on the same dates. 13. A perusal of this record shows that notices had been sent to the petitioner and his wife in these penalty petitions and non bailable warrants were issued for their production, on account of their non- appearance before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur despite service of notice. Upon being produced, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur had remanded them to the custody of the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur. Thereafter, this remand was extended from time to time. What becomes clear is that the petitioner had not been detained for non-compliance of the directions of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. The petitioner was produced under warrants issued for compelling his appearance before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur and was remanded to the custody of the Jail Superintendant, District Jail, Guntur. This remand was extended from time to time. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshlal vs Shyam decided in Civil Appeal No.331 of 2007, by a judgment dated 26.09.2013. In this case, the question that came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether real estate activity would come within the Consumer Protection Act or not. This judgment may not be relevant for the purpose of this case inasmuch as the said judgment would be relevant only for the purpose of setting aside the order passed in the consumer cases. The present Writ Petition relate to the detention of the petitioner, and whether such detention is permissible and legal. 15. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is identical to Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for levy of fine or imprisonment which is not less than one month, but which may extend to three years as a penalty against a person who fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Commission, the State Commissioner or the National Commission as the case may be. 16. Section 27/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requires a finding by the Consumer Forum that there has been non-compliance of the award passed by the Redressal Commission. 16. Section 27/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requires a finding by the Consumer Forum that there has been non-compliance of the award passed by the Redressal Commission. Upon such a finding being given, the Redressal Commission may levy a fine or sentence the defaulter to a jail sentence. In the present case, there has been no finding by the Redressal Commission that there is a default and consequently the petitioner was being sentenced to imprisonment. A reading of the docket orders in the penalty petition would show that the detention of the petitioner arose out of his production before the Redressal Commission, in pursuance to the execution of warrant issued by the Redressal Commission. No enquiry has been conducted as to whether there was non-compliance of the directions of the Redressal Commission and whether such non compliance would require the Redressal Commission to imprison the petitioner. In the absence of any such findings and in the absence of any proceedings initiated for arriving at such findings, the petitioner could not have been detained indefinitely in this manner. 17. It is settled law, that human liberty is the most sacrosanct right available to a citizen of this country. Such a right enshrined in Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be trifled with in such a casual and cavalier manner. The power of imprisonment granted to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, is not a power that can be exercised in such a casual manner. Violation of law or the non-compliance of the orders of the Redressal Commission cannot and will not result in an automatic incarceration of the defaulter. The necessary provisions relating to the procedural safeguards protecting the liberty of a citizen would have to be complied with before any defaulter can be put in prison. 18. In the present case, there is a total absence of such compliance by the District Redressal Commission. In such a situation, the continued imprisonment of the petitioner has to be ended at the earliest. Though no application for release or bail appear to have been moved before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the same cannot detract from the need to protect the fundamental right of personal liberty of the petitioner. 19. In such a situation, the continued imprisonment of the petitioner has to be ended at the earliest. Though no application for release or bail appear to have been moved before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the same cannot detract from the need to protect the fundamental right of personal liberty of the petitioner. 19. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released forthwith by the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur, in relation to the order of remand passed in P.P.No.4 of 2022 in C.C.No.13 of 2019, P.P.No.5 of 2022 in C.C.No.20 of 2019 and P.P.No.6 of 2022 in C.C.No.32 of 2019. 20. It is further stated that the District Redressal Commission has taken on file further Penalty Petitions in which memos seeking arrest of the petitioner had been filed. Since the petitioner has not filed any orders passed in such petitions, it would not be appropriate for this Court to speculate what orders have been passed and whether such orders have been passed in compliance of the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act. 21. However, since the liberty of an individual is involved, this Court would further direct the District Redressal Commission to withdraw any order of remand that may have been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur merely on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner and where such orders have been passed without an enquiry and finding as to the non-compliance of the directions of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. 22. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur in pursuance of these directions, shall take up all such matters involving the petitioner, which are pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur within three days on receipt of this order by advancing of such cases and pass necessary orders of release. The observations in this order will not preclude the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur from completing the enquiry in the above penalty petitions and passing necessary orders, uninfluenced by the observations in this order. 23. However, we would also make it clear that the release of the petitioner directed in this case would not in any manner impinge upon the enquiry to be conducted in all the aforesaid penalty petitions or such other penalty petitions that may have filed against the petitioner by other purchasers. 23. However, we would also make it clear that the release of the petitioner directed in this case would not in any manner impinge upon the enquiry to be conducted in all the aforesaid penalty petitions or such other penalty petitions that may have filed against the petitioner by other purchasers. It would also be open to the petitioner to raise all his defences, permissible under law, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. 24. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.