Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and also the direction issued to arrest the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6. Ext.P1 is the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, which is pending consideration before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The subject matter in issue was taken up before the National Commission in a revision against an order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.59/12. The National Commission directed the parties to appear before the District Forum on 2.4.2013. The National Commission further observed that the District Forum shall first see in regard to the compliance of the order and pass orders accordingly. In fact the direction issued by the National Commission were 1) Calling upon the 1st respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.1,33,150/- before the District Forum, 2) Petitioner to put him in possession of the apartment within 48 hours and to give key and possession, 3) That necessary 'No Objection' Certificate (NOC) to be deposited by the petitioner before the District Forum. 2. It is further observed that disbursal of the amount shall be subject to the out come of the order.
3. Petitioner submitted Ext. P5, which according to the petitioner contained the NOC in compliance with the directions issued. The Forum by its order dated 21.6.2013 issued restraint warrant against petitioners and directed steps to be taken on 5.7.2013. The matter was posted on 30.7.2013. Petitioner preferred a revision before the State Commission as RP No.354/2013. By Ext.P7 order dated 2.9.2013, the State Commission did not interfere with the said order. At this stage, the petitioner had approached this Court.
4. According to the petitioner, there was no specific format for giving NOC and therefore, there was no justification on the part of Consumer Forum to have issued restraint warrant against him.
4. This Court passed an interim order keeping in abeyance the order at Ext.P6. During the hearing of the matter, this Court had directed the petitioner to submit the NOC before the Municipality as per the format issued by this Court. The said interim order is dated 26.5.2014.
5. The 1st respondent appearing as party in person and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NOC as directed by this Court in the order dated 26.5.2014 is submitted before the Municipality. Therefore, insofar as one of the condition prescribed by the National Commission is concerned, it can be treated as complied with and the District Forum will have to act accordingly.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that he is entitled for the amount deposited by the 1st respondent before the Forum. I do not think so. The said amount had been deposited by the 1st respondent and there is already a direction by the National Commission that the disbursal of the amount shall be after adjudication of the lis by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, the Consumer Forum will have to adjudicate on the merits or other wise of the dispute as per the directions issued by the National Commission. The only modification made is with reference to the submission of NOC which is directed to be produced before the Forum. Since the petitioner had already submitted NOC before the Municipality as directed by this Court, such a direction issued by the National commission being already satisfied, it need not be complied by the petitioner.
Having regard to these developments in the case, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under :
It is declared that the petitioner had already complied with the direction to submit NOC. Therefore, Ext.P6 order against the petitioner is set aside. There will be a direction to the Consumer Forum to dispose of Ext.P1 complaint on merits in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE True Copy //P.A to Judge// jm/