ADV Calvin Jones: The Tamilnadu Housing Board has acquired the land of the Respondent in the year 1991 and subsequently the respondent filed a Writ petition and same was allowed in favour of the Respondent seting aside the acquisition of the

[10/05, 13:07] ADV Calvin Jones: The Tamilnadu Housing Board has acquired the land of the Respondent in the year 1991 and subsequently the respondent filed a Writ petition and same was allowed in favour of the Respondent seting aside the acquisition of the Tamilnadu Housing Board. While the respondent approached the Tamilnadu Housing Board to obtain NOC of the land by issuing DD in favour of Tamilnadu Housing Board despite the petitioner did not sanction NOC. Thus, the Respondent filed a case in District Consumer commission, Hosur for deficiency of service by Tamilnadu Housing Board and the District Commission passed ex-parte order against Tamilnadu Housing Board and the same was challenged by Government before State Consumer commission, and State Consumer commission remanded back the matter to District Consumer Commission with a condition to Government that they have to file Vakkalat and written Statement on the same day and directed the District Commission to conclude the matter within a period of 6 months. Further, Tamilnadu Housing Board filed Vakkalat before the District Commission but again failed to file written Statement and turned Ex-parte and thus District Consumer Commission Directed to issue NOC to the complainant/Respondent along with a compensation. While, Tamilnadu Housing Board preferred an Appeal against the Order to State Consumer commission and National Consumer commission and both the Commission confirmed the order of District Consumer Commission. The Respondent preferred an EA against the District Consumer Commission order in District Consumer commission under section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 and the District Consumer commission directed the Managing Director to be Physically present before the District Consumer Commission. However, the Managing Director did not appear and thus a Bailable warrant was issued against the Managing Director of Tamilnadu Housing Board. Hence, Tamilnadu Housing Board preferred Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.2094 of 2024 to set aside the bailable warrant issued by the District Consumer Commission and matter was listed before the Hon’ble Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira, the Learned AAG submitted that the Managing Director was unable to appear before the Court due to Election Duty and prayed for setting aside the Order. While, the Respondent counsel Mr.I.Calvin Jones, appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner filed an E.A. No. 20 of 2023 in C.C.No.19 of2021 under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Against the same the Petitioner preferred C.R.P.No.2093 of 2024 before Hon’ble Madras High Court and the Respondent Counsel submitted that an Order passed under Section 72 is appealable under section 73(1) of ConsumerProtection Act, 2019 and thereby in view of availability of Statutory Appeal Remedy. Hence, the present civil revision filed before this Court is not maintainable, hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. Further, the Respondent Counsel argued that the CRP is not maintainable since staturoy Appeal is available under section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 before State Consumer commission. Heard the both sides argument Hon’ble Judge dismissed the CRP of the Government by condoning the delay and directed the Managing Director of Tamilnadu Housing Board to prefer an Appeal before the State Consumer Commission under section 73 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.