Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court delivered its judgment on a writ petition filed by a dental surgeon challenging the issuance of a non-bailable arrest warrant by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, in an execution proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to prevent the enforcement of the warrant, arguing that procedural irregularities had occurred and that her appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, was pending.

The petitioner contended that the warrant, issued despite compliance with statutory conditions for appeal, was “ex facie illegal and erroneous.” The Court was called upon to assess whether the procedural safeguards under the Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019 were adhered to and whether the District Commission acted within its authority in issuing the warrant.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed in 2018 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the third respondent, alleging deficiency of service by the petitioner. The District Commission allowed the complaint in January 2024, directing the petitioner to pay ₹5,00,000 to the complainant. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, depositing ₹25,000 as mandated under the Act. While the appeal was pending, the third respondent initiated execution proceedings, alleging non-compliance with the District Commission’s order. The petitioner, appearing in the execution proceedings, sought time to file objections, but a non-bailable arrest warrant was subsequently issued.

The petitioner argued that the warrant was issued without affording her an opportunity to be heard and that her compliance with statutory requirements for filing an appeal rendered the warrant untenable. It was further contended that under the Consumer Protection Acts, there is no provision akin to Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits an automatic stay of execution upon filing an appeal. However, the petitioner submitted that her appeal, having been duly admitted, should have stayed the enforceability of the District Commission’s order by operation of law.

The Court observed that the Consumer Protection Acts require appellants to deposit either 50% of the awarded amount or a fixed sum as a condition precedent for admitting appeals. In this case, the petitioner complied with this requirement by depositing ₹25,000, thereby satisfying the statutory preconditions. The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreenath Corp. v. Consumer Education and Research Society [(2014) 8 SCC 657], which held that “the condition of pre-deposit is intended to deter frivolous appeals and is independent of the merits of the appeal or the grant of stay.” The judgment also stated that appellate authorities possess inherent powers to grant interim relief, including stays, provided statutory conditions are met.

The High Court observed that the absence of explicit provisions for an automatic stay does not preclude appellate forums from exercising their inherent powers to grant stays. It stated, “The Commissions retain the authority to stay execution proceedings, provided the appellant complies with statutory preconditions and moves an appropriate application.” The Court further remarked that procedural fairness demands that coercive measures, such as arrest warrants, should only be employed after affording an opportunity to be heard.

The District Commission defended its actions, asserting that the petitioner failed to produce any order staying the execution proceedings and did not inform the Commission of her pending appeal. However, the High Court found that the issuance of the warrant without adequate consideration of the petitioner’s statutory compliance and pending appeal amounted to a breach of procedural fairness. The Court stated, “The issuance of a non-bailable warrant without addressing the petitioner’s objections or considering the pendency of an appeal undermines the principles of natural justice.”

The High Court provided interim relief to the petitioner, deferring the enforceability of the arrest warrant for 60 days. It directed the petitioner to file an application for a stay of execution before the State Commission within 30 days. The State Commission was instructed to dispose of the application within one month, ensuring that both parties were given an opportunity to be heard.

The Court observed that the petitioner had no alternative remedy, necessitating the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. It stated, “The petitioner has demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements and raised a legitimate grievance regarding procedural impropriety, warranting judicial intervention.”

Case Title: Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 25701 of 2024
Bench Composition: Justice C.S. Dias

[View/Download order]