[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Shaik Allabakshu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 July, 2025
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010088402025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3541]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 4585/2025
Between:
Shaik Allabakshu, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G SRI HARSHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
3. KOTHA LEELA GANESH RAGHAVENDRA
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner herein is the Managing Director of a company
named ‘Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited’ which is involved in real
estate business. The said company is said to have made a lay out of land
in certain survey numbers of Vankayalapadu village of Pattipadu Mandal,
Guntur District. These plots were offered for sale and various members of
2
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025the public had entered into agreements for purchasing these plots and
paid substantial amounts of money towards the purchase of these plots.
However, neither the company nor the petitioner herein was completing
the transactions by execution of necessary documents. The purchasers,
contending that the company had never even purchased the land which is
sought to be made into plots, had approached the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur for compensation and refund of
the amounts already paid to M/s. Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited.
The respondents in these consumer cases were the petitioner described
as a director of M/s. Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited and his wife
who was also described as a director of Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private
Limited.
2. These consumer cases, more specifically C.C.No.13 of 2019,
C.C.No.20 of 2019 and C.C.No.32 of 2019 were allowed with directions to
the opposite parties therein, to refund the sale consideration paid out by
the complainant and to pay compensation and Costs. The said amounts
being payable by within four weeks from the date of the order. As these
orders were not complied, the consumers filed Penalty Petitions 4 to 6 of
2022 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Guntur.
3
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
3. It appears that initially some steps were taken for arriving at
a compromise in the matter. However, the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Guntur by an order, dated 20.07.2022, had taken
the petitioner herein into custody and forwarded the petitioner to the
Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, under Section 27 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C with a
further remand warrant being addressed to the Superintendant, District
Jail, Guntur for detaining the petitioner in the custody of the jail
Superintendant till 03.08.2022. The custody order was passed by way of
a common order in P.P.No.4 of 2022 in C.C.No.13 of 2019, P.P.No.5 of
2022 in C.C.No.20 of 2019 and P.P.No.6 of 2022 in C.C.No.32 of 2019.
Thereafter, the other affected parties, who had already approached the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur against the
petitioner and his wife had filed separate P.Ps for detention of the
petitioner. These P.Ps are P.P.Nos.17 to 42 of 2019, 45 to 65 of 2022
and P.P.Nos.72 to 84 of 2022.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by his detention in the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur from 20.07.2022 has
approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.
5. Sri G. Sri Harsha, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would contend that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
4
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
Commission, Guntur did not have any power of detaining the petitioner for
such a prolonged period and in any event, the power that is said to have
been exercised under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C would have to be set aside on the ground that it
has not followed the required procedure and has been passed without the
conditions set out in Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
being complied.
6. After notice, the respondents 4 to 6 had been served with
notice and Sri K.L. Ganesh Raghavendra has filed vakalat for them.
7. Heard Sri G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1
to 3 and Sri K.L. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 4 to 6.
8. As the circumstances in which the petitioner had been kept
under detention and the circumstances in which such detention had been
extended from time to time were not clear, this Court had summoned the
record in relation to P.P.Nos.4 to 6 of 2022, C.C.No.13 of 2019,
C.C.No.20 of 2019 and C.C.No.30 of 2019.
9. The available material shows that C.C.No.13 of 2019 came
to be disposed of on 30.08.2019 directing the petitioner and his wife to
refund sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @12% per annum
5
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
from 05.04.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards
compensation, payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and
payment of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of complaint.
10. C.C.No.20 of 2019 was disposed of by an order, dated
30.08.2019, directing the petitioner and his wife to pay to refund sale
consideration of Rs.1,71,612/- with interest @12% per annum from
30.11.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation,
payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and payment of Rs.2,000/-
towards cost of complaint.
11. C.C.No.32 of 2019 was disposed of by an order, dated
30.08.2019, directing the petitioner and his wife to pay to refund sale
consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- with interest @12% per annum from
30.11.2015 till realization, payment of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation,
payment of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and payment of Rs.2,000/-
towards cost of complaint.
12. In C.C.No.13 of 2019, Penalty Petition No.4 of 2022 came to
be filed on 02.11.2021 contending that the petitioner and his wife had
failed to comply with the orders of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Guntur. The Commission after taking his petition
on file initiated process on 26.04.2022, matter was posted to 11.05.2022
and 27.06.2022. On 27.06.2022 a prayer was made for issuance of
6
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
warrants against the petitioner and his wife for not appearing before the
reddressal commission. On 20.07.2022, the petitioner was produced
before the Commission, by a police constable of Pattabhipuram Police
Station, in execution of the warrant issued on 27.06.2022. On that date,
the Commission remanded the petitioner for 14 days up to 03.08.2022
with a direction to produce the petitioner on 03.08.2022 at 11.30 a.m. On
03.08.2022, the remand was extended till 16.08.2022. The matter again
came up on 16.08.2022 when the petitioner was examined under Section
251 of Cr.P.C and his remand was extended for a further period of 14
days. The matter underwent various adjournments when the remand of
the petitioner was extended from time to time. The orders passed in
P.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 are identical orders, passed on the same dates.
13. A perusal of this record shows that notices had been sent to
the petitioner and his wife in these penalty petitions and non bailable
warrants were issued for their production, on account of their non-
appearance before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Guntur despite service of notice. Upon being produced, the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur had
remanded them to the custody of the Jail Superintendent, District Jail,
Guntur. Thereafter, this remand was extended from time to time. What
becomes clear is that the petitioner had not been detained for non-
7
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
compliance of the directions of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Guntur. The petitioner was produced under warrants issued
for compelling his appearance before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Guntur and was remanded to the custody of the
Jail Superintendant, District Jail, Guntur. This remand was extended from
time to time.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganeshlal vs Shyam
decided in Civil Appeal No.331 of 2007, by a judgment dated 26.09.2013.
In this case, the question that came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was whether real estate activity would come within the Consumer
Protection Act or not. This judgment may not be relevant for the purpose
of this case inasmuch as the said judgment would be relevant only for the
purpose of setting aside the order passed in the consumer cases. The
present Writ Petition relate to the detention of the petitioner, and whether
such detention is permissible and legal.
15. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is
identical to Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for
levy of fine or imprisonment which is not less than one month, but which
may extend to three years as a penalty against a person who fails or
8
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
omits to comply with any order made by the District Commission, the
State Commissioner or the National Commission as the case may be.
16. Section 27/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requires a finding by the Consumer
Forum that there has been non-compliance of the award passed by the
Redressal Commission. Upon such a finding being given, the Redressal
Commission may levy a fine or sentence the defaulter to a jail sentence.
In the present case, there has been no finding by the Redressal
Commission that there is a default and consequently the petitioner was
being sentenced to imprisonment. A reading of the docket orders in the
penalty petition would show that the detention of the petitioner arose out
of his production before the Redressal Commission, in pursuance to the
execution of warrant issued by the Redressal Commission. No enquiry
has been conducted as to whether there was non-compliance of the
directions of the Redressal Commission and whether such non
compliance would require the Redressal Commission to imprison the
petitioner. In the absence of any such findings and in the absence of any
proceedings initiated for arriving at such findings, the petitioner could not
have been detained indefinitely in this manner.
17. It is settled law, that human liberty is the most sacrosanct
right available to a citizen of this country. Such a right enshrined in Article
9
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
19 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be trifled with in such a
casual and cavalier manner. The power of imprisonment granted to the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 72 of
the Consumer Protection Act, is not a power that can be exercised in
such a casual manner. Violation of law or the non-compliance of the
orders of the Redressal Commission cannot and will not result in an
automatic incarceration of the defaulter. The necessary provisions
relating to the procedural safeguards protecting the liberty of a citizen
would have to be complied with before any defaulter can be put in prison.
18. In the present case, there is a total absence of such
compliance by the District Redressal Commission. In such a situation, the
continued imprisonment of the petitioner has to be ended at the earliest.
Though no application for release or bail appear to have been moved
before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the same
cannot detract from the need to protect the fundamental right of personal
liberty of the petitioner.
19. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released forthwith by the
Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Guntur, in relation to the order of remand
passed in P.P.No.4 of 2022 in C.C.No.13 of 2019, P.P.No.5 of 2022 in
C.C.No.20 of 2019 and P.P.No.6 of 2022 in C.C.No.30 of 2019.
10
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
20. It is further stated that the District Redressal Commission has
taken on file further Penalty Petitions in which memos seeking arrest of
the petitioner had been filed. Since the petitioner has not filed any orders
passed in such petitions, it would not be appropriate for this Court to
speculate what orders have been passed and whether such orders have
been passed in compliance of the requirements of the Consumer
Protection Act.
21. However, since the liberty of an individual is involved, this
Court would further direct the District Redressal Commission to withdraw
any order of remand that may have been passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur merely on the ground
of non-appearance of the petitioner and where such orders have been
passed without an enquiry and finding as to the non-compliance of the
directions of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Guntur.
22. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Guntur in pursuance of these directions, shall take up all such matters
involving the petitioner, which are pending before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur within three days on receipt of
this order by advancing of such cases and pass necessary orders of
release. The observations in this order will not preclude the District
11
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur from completing the
enquiry in the above penalty petitions and passing necessary orders,
uninfluenced by the observations in this order.
23. However, we would also make it clear that the release of the
petitioner directed in this case would not in any manner impinge upon the
enquiry to be conducted in all the aforesaid penalty petitions or such other
penalty petitions that may have filed against the petitioner by other
purchasers. It would also be open to the petitioner to raise all his
defences, permissible under law, before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Guntur.
24. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
___________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM,J
RJS
12
RRR,J & JS,J
W.P.No.4585 of 2025
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.4585 of 2025
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Dt: 09.07.2025
RJS
[ad_2]
Source link