IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11776 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRAVEEN.B.WARRIER, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. BALAN, EDAKKUNNI WARRIAM, P.O.PAZHUVIL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SADASIVAN, S/O.KIZHIYEDATH NARAYANAPILLAI, POOPPATHY, POYYA, KODUNGALLUR. 2. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 11776 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 9th June , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers: “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders upon Ext. P5 petition within a period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii) Direct the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur to keep the execution of warrant issued in E.A.No.162/09 in abeyance until final order has been passed upon Exhibit P5 petition; And iii) such other reliefs this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 11.04.2011, the following interim order was passed. “Urgent notice on admission by Speed W.P.(C) No. 11776 OF 2011 2 Post. Post immediately after vacation. Execution of the warrant against the petitioner issued in E.A.No. 162/09 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months; subject to the condition that the petitioner produces complaint-free inverter as assured and satisfy the compensation and cost awarded by the 2nd respondent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 18.04.2011 or on such other date to which the case is adjourned by the 2nd respondent.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition imposed vide the interim order has already been complied with and the Inverter has already been produced before the second respondent; simultaneously pointing out that the first respondent herein, who was the complainant could very well examine the same, if he so desired, which, however was not acted upon by the complainant. It is stated that the case stands adjourned to the 4th week of June, 2011. 4. Inspite of completion of service of notice on admission by Speed Post, the first respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court. It appears that the said respondent is no more W.P.(C) No. 11776 OF 2011 3 interested with the fate of the case as put forth by the petitioner. 5. In the above circumstance, the second respondent shall pass final orders on Ext. P5, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the 'warrant' of arrest already issued shall not be executed against the petitioner till final orders are passed, as aforesaid. It will be open for the first respondent to take custody of the Inverter, which is stated as produced pursuant to the interim order of this Court, if he so desires. The writ petition is allowed. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk