Ladda wp­8358­11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8358 OF 2011. Shri Madhukar B. Narkar ....Petitioner. Versus Shri Kedar S. Mangaonkar ...Respondent. Mr S.Y.Katkade i/by V. Nirmala for the Petitioner. Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for the Respondent. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 18th October,2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By order dated 10.9.2003, the District Consumers Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri in Complaint No. 16 of 2002 directed the petitioner :- (i) To pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 18% from 1.3.2001 to the respondent/complainant. Ladda wp­8358­11 (ii) To pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest from 29.3.2001 to the respondent/complainant. (iii) To pay an amount of Rs.12,999/- to the respondent/complainant. 3. Parties agree that total an amount of Rs.3,03,000/- is due and recoverable from the petitioner. This order has become final. The petitioner has not challenged the same before the Appellate Forum. By order dated 20.7.2010 the District Consumers Forum, Ratnagiri convicted the petitioner under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and sentenced him to suffer two years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. From the said order, it is clear that the petitioner was in custody from 8.7.2010 to 20.7.2010. The petitioner was convicted for non-compliance of the order dated 10.9.2003. The order dated 20.7.2010 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, same was not entertained on the ground that the petitioner has filed the same beyond the period of limitation and delay was not sufficiently explained. 4. The petitioner has thereafter preferred an application on 19.9.2011 (Exh.I) before the District Consumers Forum in the recovery application No.27/2009. The petitioner shown readiness and willingness to comply with the order of the District Consumers Forum dated 10.9.2003 and Ladda wp­8358­11 made request to allow him to deposit the amount as per the said order. This application came to be rejected on the ground that District Consumer Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to recall the punishment. This order is impugned in the present petition. 5. Mr Katkade, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the order dated 10.9.2003 issued by the District Consumers Forum, Ratnagiri in Complaint No. 16 of 2002. He says that two drafts dated 7.9.2011 drawn on Bank of Baroda for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.23,779/- are ready. He tenders the original drafts to Mr Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Xerox copies of these drafts are kept on record of this proceeding. Thus, total amount of Rs.2,93,779/- is paid today to Mr Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent, for and on behalf of the respondent. Mr Katkade, learned counsel submits that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was already paid to the respondent and reference to that effect is already made in the order dated 20.7.2010 by the District Consumers Redressal Forum in Recovery Application No. 27/2009. Statement of the learned counsel Katkade is accepted. 6. Mr R.D.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that since entire amount under order dated 10.9.2003 of the District Consumers Forum is received by the respondent/complainant. He is not Ladda wp­8358­11 interested in keeping the petitioner in jail. In these circumstances, he says that the petitioner’s application at Exh.I is required to be allowed, since the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the respondent as per order dated 10.9.2003, the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards payment of fine with the Registrar, District Consumers Forum and the petitioner has already undergone the simple imprisonment with effect from 8.7.2010 to 20.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till today the petitioner is in jail as he was again taken into custody on 31.5.2011. In my view, interest of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner’s application at Exhibit-I is allowed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order:- ORDER. (i) Petitioner’s application at Exh.I in recovery application No. 27/2009 is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 20.7.2010 passed by the District Consumers Forum in Recovery Application No.27/2009 is quashed and set aside. (ii) Petitioner be enlarged forthwith. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)