High Court Kerala High Court

S.Santhosh Kumar vs Mary Morris on 4 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
S.Santhosh Kumar vs Mary Morris on 4 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 35762 of 2007(G)


1. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MARY MORRIS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. J.XAVIER, S/O JOSEPH,

3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

4. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BINU MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/12/2007

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   W.P.(C) No. 35762 OF 2007 G
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                 Dated this the 4th December, 2007

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a Part-time Administrator of a Co-operative

Society. Against the Co-operative Society the 4th respondent had

passed an order in O.P. No. 261/05. Aggrieved by the said order,

the Society has already filed Ext. P3 appeal before the Kerala State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is yet to be

numbered and in the meanwhile the complainants in the O.P,

respondents 1 and 2, filed E.P. No. 58/07 seeking to enforce the

order in O.P. No. 261/05.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared personally

before the 4th respondent and submitted about the pendency of the

appeal, but, however, ignoring the same, by order dated 5.11.2007,

warrant of arrest has been issued and in these circumstances the

writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order issuing

warrant of arrest and for restraining the respondents from

W.P.(C) No. 35762 OF 2007 -2-

enforcing the same.

3. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not

necessary to issue notice to the parties.

4. In my view the contention raised by the petitioner on the

merits need not be considered at this stage. This is for the reason

that the petitioner has already filed Ext. P3 appeal which is pending

consideration. I feel interests of justice will be met if the petitioner

is given a breathing time to move the State Commission and obtain

interim order, keeping in abeyance the order dated 5.11.2007

issued by the 4th respondent issuing warrant of arrest against the

petitioner.

5. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the

order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the 4th respondent in E.P. No.

58/07 shall be deferred for a period of one month from today. In

the meanwhile, it will be for the petitioner to move Ext. P3 appeal

before the State Commission and obtain appropriate interim orders.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-