"Warrant of Arrest Not Authorized Under the Act": Calcutta High Court Invalidates Consumer Forum's Actions as Beyond Jurisdiction
Safiya Malik
In a recent judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court, a Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh quashed an arrest warrant issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against an individual who was neither a party to the original consumer complaint nor the execution proceedings. The court concluded that the Forum had acted beyond its legal authority in ordering the petitioner’s arrest and declared the impugned orders legally unsustainable.
The petitioner, Abdul Manim Mollah, approached the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in Execution Case No. 41 of 2018, which arose out of Consumer Case No. 80 of 2016. He also sought quashing of specific orders dated 13th December 2019, 22nd September 2022, and subsequent directions issued up to 28th March 2024.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that Mr. Mollah was never made a party in the original case filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or in the execution proceedings that followed. The matter originated from an agreement dated 20th November 2013 between the petitioner and the private opposite party concerning the sale of a tractor. The total sale consideration was Rs. 7,78,710, of which Rs. 10,000 was paid in advance. The opposite party secured Rs. 5,30,000 as a loan from L&T Finance for the purchase, leaving Rs. 2,18,716 pending.
The agreement stipulated that the registration certificate and related documents would be handed over upon full clearance of the amount. The private opposite party subsequently paid Rs. 1,93,000 in instalments, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 25,716. However, the private opposite party defaulted on loan payments to L&T Finance, prompting the finance company to repossess the vehicle. The opposite party executed a surrender letter on 20th May 2015, leading to the resale of the tractor to a third party named Shib Nath Das.
The opposite party thereafter filed a consumer complaint under Sections 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The case was registered as Consumer Case No. 80 of 2016 against the Branch Manager, S&S Automobiles, Bilshara Road Branch, Police Station Pandua, District Hooghly. The District Forum passed an order on 27th July 2018 directing the respondent to hand over the registration certificate after receiving the due amount of Rs. 25,716 from the complainant within 30 days.
Following non-compliance, Execution Application No. 41 of 2018 was filed, resulting in an arrest warrant issued against the petitioner on 13th December 2019. The petitioner contended that he had no prior knowledge of either the original or execution proceedings and only became aware upon issuance of the arrest warrant. He also clarified that the case was instituted against the branch manager while he was the sole proprietor of S&S Automobiles. The said information was placed on record before the Forum by the Officer-in-Charge, Pandua Police Station on 22nd September 2022.
The court noted that this issue was already pending consideration before the State Commission and thus refrained from making any observations on it.
The core issue addressed by the court was whether a Consumer Forum could issue a warrant of arrest in the course of executing its orders. The court drew upon the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench on 12th August 2022 in CRR 2955 of 2022. It stated, "in an execution application the Commission cannot issue warrant of arrest in enforcement of its order." It further clarified that while the Commission is empowered to enforce its order under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), it must adhere strictly to its procedural boundaries.
The court relied on Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prescribes that:
"Every order made by a District Commission, State Commission or the National Commission shall be enforced by it in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a Court in a suit before it and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908) shall, as far as may be, applicable..."
This provision implies that execution must proceed as per Order XXI CPC, which permits the detention of judgment debtors in civil prison under certain conditions. The High Court elaborated that:
"An order granting specific performance of an agreement as in the present case is executable under the provision of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and may be executed by putting the judgment debtor in civil prison or by attachment and sale of his property or by both."
Additionally, it was clarified that the cost of executing a warrant of arrest and detaining an individual in civil prison must be borne by the decree holder, subject to prior assessment by the Forum. The court reiterated that the Forum cannot exercise powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure in such matters.
Section 72 of the Act, dealing with penalties for non-compliance, was also referred to. The court observed:
"The Commission is empowered to initiate proceeding under section 72 of the Act for penalty for non-compliance of the order."
However, it stated that:
"The law does not authorize the Forum to issue warrant of arrest for enforcement of its order under the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Concluding the matter, the High Court ordered:
"In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the orders impugned dated 13th December, 2019 directing issuance of warrant of arrest and further orders consequent thereto are dehors the provision laid down in the Act and are accordingly quashed."
The revisional application CRR 1499 of 2024 was thus allowed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Krishnendu Banerjee, Md. Idrish
Case Title: Abdul Manim Mollah v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: C.R.R. 1499 of 2024
Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh
[Read/Download order]
