Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition, C.O. 13091(W) of 1990, was filed on 29th August, 1990 by the petitioner challenging inter alia the annexures 'F', 'I' & 'L' in the writ petition. Annexure 'F' purports to be a notice issued by Rajasthan State Consumer Protection Council (hereinafter called the said Council), the respondent No. 2. Annexure 'I' appears to be an order dated 17th April, 1990 issued by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter called the said Com- mission), the respondent No. 3. Annexure 'L' purports to be a notice dated 18.7.1990 issued by the said Commission asking the petitioner to show cause why the order dated 17.04.90 should not be implemented under section 25 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the said Act) and why the petitioner should not be punished under section 27 of the said Act.
(2.) The writ petition was initially moved on 29th August, 1990 before a learned Judge of this Court and the writ petition was directed to be taken up on an adjourned date upon notice on respondent No. 2. On the next date, the learned Judge after hearing the appearing parties was pleased to pass the following order: "No further steps be taken in terms of the application dated 28th August, 1990. In the event any order has been passed no further effect be given thereto until further orders of this Court. No further steps be taken in terms of the application under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 until further orders of this Court. This order is passed, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties including the maintainability and jurisdiction of this writ application. Let this matter appear in the list as 'contested application' one week after long vacation. Let xerox copies of this order be supplied by the Department to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties upon payment of usual charges and upon an undertaking to apply for and obtain the certified copy of this order". It appears while passing the order the learned Judge made it clear that the said order is without prejudice to the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Thereafter, affidavit has been filed in this case and matter has been argued before me.
(3.) The writ petition has been contested only by the respondent No. 4. It appears from the array of parties in this writ petition that the respondent No. 4 is the only the contesting respondent.;