Samasth Infotaiment PVT LTD And Ors vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, Samasth Infotainment Pvt. Ltd. and others, are aggrieved by an order dated August 5, 2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in an execution proceeding (EA/15/2022). This order directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioners. The underlying dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by opposite parties 2-4, seeking possession of flats, registration, and compensation for alleged illegal demands of GST and interest. The DCDRC had initially allowed the complaint ex-parte on February 28, 2022, directing the petitioners to pay compensation and complete certain actions. The petitioners had filed an appeal against this order with a delay condonation application, which was pending. The current application was filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Held

The Court held that the DCDRC cannot issue a warrant of arrest against a judgment debtor in an execution proceeding. Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, mandates that orders of the DCDRC are to be enforced in the same manner as a decree of a civil court, with provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure being applicable. While Order XXI Rule 30 allows for execution by civil prison or sale of property, it does not grant the power to issue a warrant of arrest in the manner contemplated by Part B of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court clarified that the DCDRC has the authority to issue a warrant for detention in civil prison, but not a criminal arrest warrant. The Court also affirmed its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash illegal orders passed by tribunals like the DCDRC, citing precedents like Associate Cement Companies Limited vs. P.N. Sharma and L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India. Consequently, the order dated August 5, 2022, issuing the warrant of arrest, was quashed. The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial Service) to circulate the order to all DCDRCs and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions for guidance.

Key Issues

The Court had to decide three questions of law: (i) Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) can issue a warrant of arrest against a judgment debtor in an execution proceeding, turning on Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the impugned order is revisable by the High Court under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iii) Whether an order passed by the DCDRC is amenable to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners argued that the DCDRC lacked the power to issue a warrant of arrest in an execution proceeding, as such powers are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The State/Revenue did not record any specific arguments on these points.