- (1.) These intra court Appeals have been filed by the appellantpetitioners aggrieved against the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8632/2009 and order dated 16.05.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3269/2008, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur ('the District Forum') initiating/continuing the penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act') were dismissed. 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/-.
(2.) 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. The judgment of the District Forum dated 25.11.2006 was challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('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.
(3.) The subject matter of the present special appeals 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 appellant P.R. Pandat, the then Secretary of the UIT. The District Forum by its order dated 18.04.2007 took cognizance and ordered issuance of notice. Whereafter on 26.05.2007 when application for exemption for personal presence was filed by the appellant 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 alongwith 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 appellant Krishna Kunal, the newly appointed Secretary were present, Krishna Kunal prayed for time for compliance of the judgment and was granted two month's 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; whereafter 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 alongwith 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 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 Krishna Kunal and P. Ramesh 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 Krishna Kunal and P. Ramesh. The charges were denied and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings.;