- (1.) By this writ petition a challenge is made to Section 27(1), 27(2), and 27(3) of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bailable warrant of arrest was issued in pursuance to Section 27 of the Act under challenge. It is despite compliance of the direction of the District Consumer Forum. The petitioner thus preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Consumer Redressal State Commission. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 13.6.2011. It is after considering that no ground is made out to cause interference as the bailable warrant of arrest has been issued in the given facts and circumstances. This writ petition was then filed in the year 2011 not only to challenge the order of the District Consumer Forum but the order passed by the Rajasthan Consumer Redressal State Commission. The constitutional validity of Section 27(1), 27(2), and 27(3) of the Act of 1986, as amended vide Notification of year 2002, was also challenged. The notice on the writ petition was issued on 14.9.2011, but then stay was denied on 16.3.2012.
(3.) The writ petition remained pending for one or the other reason and mainly due to non appearance of the counsel for the petitioner at times. The writ petition was listed on 5.5.2016. The learned counsel for petitioner sought and granted time to find out the present status of the case because bailable warrant of arrest was issued in the year 2011 and the matter is now old by 5 years. The learned counsel was given time to find out whether the application under Section 27 of the Act is still pending or has taken its course during the intervening period. It was for the reason that if the proceedings have already been concluded then the challenge to the constitutional validity remains academic in nature and for which, liberty can be given to the petitioner to challenge it appropriately in a given case. It is also seen that whenever bailable warrant of arrest is issued, it cannot be on a body but on a person, but he is not before this Court for challenge to the order though he is directly affected. It is the affected person who could have challenged the validity of the provision and not the body, on whom bailable warrant of arrest can be issued or must not have been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of the Director (Law), information about the status of case could not be gathered.;