1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P(MD)No.1670 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 M.Rajeshwaran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, District Court Complex, Lakshmipuram, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, District Police Office, Theni. 3.The District Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority, Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act,1997, Theni, Theni District. 4.S.Natarajan .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent to decide the dispute in E.A.No.14 of 2010 in C.C.No.176 of 2007 with respect to Umayaval Motors. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Velavadhas O R D E R The petitioner challenges the proceedings in E.A.No.14 of 2010 in C.C.No.176 of 2007 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Theni. 2.The petitioner constituted a financial establishment in the name and style of “Umayaval Motors” at Theni. The petitioner was the Managing partner of the Financial Establishment. The said Financial institution mobilized public deposits. Since the deposits were not repaid, the depositors moved the machinery under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (Fin Financial Estabhlishment) Act, 1997, and the petitioner and the other partners have taken anticipatory bail from this Court and they are prosecuting the said matter. 3.While the matters stood thus, the 4th respondent filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Theni. The said complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.176 of 2007. The first respondent was pleased to pass an order on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 09.04.2010, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- with interest at 24% per annum. Since the petitioner has not satisfied with the said order, the 4th respondent has filed an execution petition in E.A.No.14 of 2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court. 4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.The Execution Application filed by the 4th respondent to recover the amount was on the basis of an order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in C.C.No.176 of 2007. The impugned proceedings is only an execution proceedings. There is no challenge to the order dated 09.04.2010 and as such, he cannot challenge the consequential order. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property of the petitioner has already been attached by the Sessions Court Constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act. These are all matters to be agitated before the appellate forum constituted to hear the appeals against the orders passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. In any case, the consequential proceedings and the execution proceedings cannot be challenged without challenging the principal order. Therefore, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition. 7.In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( P AND A ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR MPK To 1.The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, District Court Complex, Lakshmipuram, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, District Police Office, Theni. 3.The District Revenue Officer cum Competent Authority, Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act,1997, Theni, Theni District. DM:2011::MARCH:07::: W.P(MD)No.1670 of 2011 14.02.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/