IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9131 of 2008. Date of Decision: 18th May, 2009. Mahavir Kaushik ....Petitioner through Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate Versus District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula & Ors. . Respondents through Mr. Anand Chhibber, Advocate. Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 16.05.2008 [Annexure P-11] passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby he has been sentenced to undergo two years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for non- implementation of the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula. While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed by this Court:- “As prayed for by learned counsel for the respondents, adjourned to 18.5.2009 for arguments. Meanwhile, reply, if any, be filed with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner. Interim orders to continue. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 points out that with the appointment of a retired Hon'ble Judge of this Court as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, the appellate forum against the impugned order is now available. The parties may, if so desire, move an application before the State Commission for pre-ponement and/or disposal of the pending appeal preferred by HUDA against the impugned order. It is made clear that pendency of this writ petition shall have no impediment in the disposal of the said appeal”. In deference thereto, it is stated by learned State Counsel that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the original order dated 30.11.2007 passed by respondent No.1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 is an off-shot of the original order dated 30.11.2007, which is already subject matter of appeal before the State Commission, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a separate appeal against the impugned order dated 16.5.2008, if so required or advised, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. It is, however, directed that till the appeal which may be filed against the impugned order or the one which has already been preferred against the original order is decided on merits, operation of the impugned order dated 16.5.2008 shall remain stayed. In case the petitioner's appeal[s] is/are dismissed by the State Commission, it is further directed that the operation of the impugned order dated 16.05.2008 shall continue to remain stayed for another period of two months to enable the petitioner to seek further redress before an appropriate forum. The petitioner shall be entitled to take all the pleas as taken in the writ petition, before the Appellate Authority. In case the petitioner prefers an appeal against the impugned order within the stipulated period as directed above, learned counsel for the respondents undertakes not to take an objection against limitation. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage. Dasti. May 18, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE