R.K.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad through its Vice Chairman and Sri R. K. Singh, Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad, seek the following reliefs :- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record of the case and quashing the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 7-10-96 (Annexure-4) and 3-3-97 (Annexure-5); (b) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to enforce the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 7-10-96 (Annexure-4) and 3-3-97 (Annexure-5) against the petitioner on any ground and in any manner whatsoever; (c) to issue an interim mandamus staying operation of the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 7-10-96 (Annexure-4) and 3-3-97 (Annexure-5) besides further proceedings of case No. 1187 of 1996 in re : Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad and others; (d) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case; and (e) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- The petitioner No. 1, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Development Authority") is an authority constituted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It had constructed certain flats under Sringverpuram Scheme at Allahabad. Vide order dated 8-9-1992, it had allotted Flat No. D-52 to Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,520/- towards registration and thereafter deposited three instalments of Rs. 35,325/- on 31-10-1992, 29-4-1993 and 5-11-1993, respectively and some other amount, totalling Rs. 1,18,995/-. According to the espondent No. 2, after the deposit of amount, referred to above, he went to the site where he found that no activity of any construction is going on. He met the authorities but they could not give any satisfactory reply. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an application before the District Forum, Allahabad, which was registered as Case No. 1187 of 1995. The respondent No. 2 sought refund of Rs. 1,18,995/- deposited by him along with interest @ 18% and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental torture and harassment meted out to him for the last three years. Notices were issued by the District Forum and after considering the reply submitted by the Development Authority, the District Forum, vide order dated 7-10-1996, directed the Development Authority to refund the amount of Rs. 1,18,995/- along with interest @15% per annum with yearly rests and costs of Rs. 200/-, within two months failing which the rate of interest would be 18@. According to the petitioners, as stated by their counsel, Sri B. B. Paul, before the Court, they have preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order before the State Commission at Lucknow. However, the State Commission has not passed any interim order either staying the operation of the impugned order dated 7-10-1996 or granting any other protection. As the order dated 7-10-1996 was not complied with by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 filed an application before the District Forum on 21-12-1996 for taking proceeding under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Development Authority and its officers for not complying with the order dated 7-10-1996. It appears that the District Forum heard the matter ex parte on 1-2-1997. Thereafter on 3-2-1997 an application was made on behalf of the Secretary of the Development Authority seeking ten days' time for filing the reply. For reasons best known, the Secretary of the Development Authority did not file any reply or objections whereupon the District Forum vide order dated 3-3-1997 imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and sentenced the Secretary, i.e., the petitioner No. 2, for three months' imprisonment. We have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. 3A. Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel, made the following submissions :- (i) if an appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, the said order does not attain finality in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and, therefore, the order cannot be got executed. According to him, the legislative intent of the Parliament while enacting Section 24 in the Act, is absolutely clear and does not involve any two interpretations; (ii) Sri Paul submitted that,in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the District Forum becomes functus officio and has no power to execute its orders. It can issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector of the district, who shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. According to him, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the application dated 21-12-1996 filed by the respondent No. 2 for initiatng proceedings under Section 27 of the Act; and (iii) lastly, he submitted that under Section 27 of the Act has empowered the authorities mentioned therein to punish a person who fails or omits to comply with any order made by it with imprisonment which necessarily makes it a quasi-criminal proceeding and, therefore, the principles of natural justice do require that the person concerned should have been given an opportunity of hearing before being punished with imrisonment or with fine or with both. According to him, in the present case, no opportunity was given to the petitioners by the District Forum and, therefore, the order dated 3-3-1997 is liable to be set aside. In support of his aforesaid plea, he has relied upon an unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad v. District Consumer Forum, Allahabad, (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38316 of 1996, decided on 30-11-1996).
(3.) HAVING given our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that even though under Section 24 of the Act it has been provided that an order passed by the District Forum would be final if no appeal has been preferred against such an order under the provisions of the Act, it does not imply that if an appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the District Forum, the order of the District Forum cannot be executed or action cannot be taken for its violation or non-compliance. For ready reference, Section 24 of the Act is reproduced below :- "24. Finality of orders.- 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." ;