Madras High CourtWP(MD)/1267/2025dismissed

K. Muniyasamy v. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

2025-01-20Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.01.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN K.Muniyasamy ... Petitioner - Vs. - 1.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Represented by its President, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District 2.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

3.Ramesh Valoor, Managing Partner, M/s.GFRG India Construction (P)ltd., Delivery Office Upstairs, Near Sofa Auto Carriage Delivery, Mangalampalam, Anjumoorthy Post, Vadakkancheri Police Limit, Palakkad, Kerala ... Respondents P RAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to pass necessary orders to execute the warrant to the Respondent No.2 or their subordinates, men and officials issued in Execution Application No.08 of 2024 in Consumer Complaint No.07 of 2023 dated.12.01.2024 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ramanathapuram against the Respondent No.3, firm and its business associates within the stipulated time fixed by this Court. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan For R2 : M/s.M.Aasha Government Advocate(Crl.side)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a direction directing the Respondent No.1 to pass necessary orders to execute the warrant to the Respondent No.2 or their subordinates, men and officials issued in Execution Application No.08 of 2024 in Consumer Complaint No.07 of 2023 dated.12.01.2024 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ramanathapuram against the Respondent No.3, firm and its business associates within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. A perusal of records would reveal that the petitioner is the complainant and the third respondent is the opposite party. The petitioner 2/4

obtained an award and also filed an execution application in E.A.No.8 of 2024. However, in the execution application though notice was served on the third respondent, none appeared. Therefore, warrant was issued by the first respondent as against the third respondent and the same was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Palakkad, Kerala State. Now, the petitioner sought for a direction to the second respondent for execution of the warrant issued as against the third respondent. The second respondent has no jurisdiction to execute the warrant issued by the first respondent. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the first respondent to direct the second respondent to execute warrant issued as against the third respondent. The petitioner ought to have approached the Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Palakkad, Kerala State in the manner known to law. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

20.01.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No CM 3/4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

CM TO:- 1.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Represented by its President, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District 2.The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

Order made in Dated:

20.01.2025 4/4