- (1.) This order governs disposal of the two writ petitions, since the controversy involved in these cases is common, and the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8633/2011-P. Ramesh Vs. State Commission Consumer Protection, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur & Ors. are illustratively taken for the said purpose.
(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, P. Ramesh, working as Collector, Sirohi, at the relevant point of time, has challenged the order Annex.6 dated 25.11.2006 and the District Consumer Forum, Jodhpur and the order Annex.11 dated 07.05.2008 passed by the learned State Commission Consumer Protection, Jodhpur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the orders dated 28.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 of the District Consumer Forum; and that the initiation of the contempt proceedings against the present petitioner may be quashed.
(3.) By the order dated 25.11.2006, on a complaint filed by the respondent No.4- Laxman Khetani, against the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur through its Secretary, (UIT, Jodhpur), the learned District Consumer Forum by its order dated 25.11.2006 directed the UIT, Jodhpur to hand over the peaceful and physical possession of Plots No.248, 249, 354, 404 and 423, of which, the lease-deed/s were also executed in favour of respondent No.4- Laxman Khetani, to the complainant. On failure to do so, the complainant initiated the contempt proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1986') against the then Secretary of the UIT, Jodhpur, Mr. P.R. Pandat, RAS. In the contempt proceedings under Section 27 of the Act vide order dated 11.04.2008, the said District Consumer Forum summoned the respondents, namely, P.R. Pandat, Krishan Kunal and Mr. P. Ramesh, since upon the change of the incumbents in the office of the Secretary of UIT, Jodhpur all three were arrayed as respondents, by bailable warrants of Rs.5000/- each on 28.04.2008. On 28.04.2008, all the three officers, namely, P. Ramesh, P.R. Pandat and Krishan Kunal, were present before the District Consumer Forum; and the charges were framed against them under the contempt proceedings and informed to them, upon which they denied the charges and claimed trial. The learned District Consumer Forum directed day-to-day trial and on next date 29.04.2009 also order was passed by District Consumer Forum for examining the petitioner's witnesses and at the request of the respondents, the matter was adjourned to 07.05.2008; and the respondents were also asked to submit their bail bonds. Aggrieved by these two orders, an appeal was filed by the present petitioner under Section 27-A of the Act against the order dated 28.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 of the District Consumer Forum before the State Commission Consumer Protection, Jodhpur, which also rejected his Appeal No.92/2008- P. Ramesh Vs. Laxman Khetani, on 07.05.2008. Aggrieved by both the said orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.;