Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) This intra Court Appeal has been filed by the appellant -petitioner aggrieved against the order dt. 13.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dt. 25.11.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur (the District Forum) arid orders dt. 05.03.2008 and 07.05.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('the State Commission') and initiation of penalty proceedings and orders therein was dismissed. Facts in brief may be noticed thus -the respondent No. 4 - complainant filed complaint under Sec. 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/ -. 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.
(2.) The judgment of the District Forum dt. 25.11.2006 was challenged before the State Commission by UIT and the State Commission by its order dt. 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 dt. 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 appeal is the penalty proceedings initiated under Sec. 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 Sec. 27 of the Act were initiated on 18.04.2007 against one P.R. Pandat, the then Secretary of the UIT. The District Forum by its order dt. 18.04.2007 took cognizance and ordered issuance of notice. Whereafter on 26.05.2007 when application for exemption from personal presence was filed by the said 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 Krishna Kunal the newly appointed Secretary were present, Krishna Kunal prayed for time for compliance of the judgment and was granted two months' 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 a 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 respondent No. 3 i.e. present appellant P. Ramesh; on 28.04.2008 all the three respondents were present, it was noticed that in the past, charges under Sec. 27 of the Act had been framed against P.R. Pandat, appellant and Krishna Kunal were heard on the charges. It was noticed that the judgment dt. 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 P. Ramesh and Krishna Kunal. The charges were denied and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings.;