P.S.RAO vs State of Maharashtra

RULE. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

BY notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, issued by the President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, in State of Kerala, which was received by the petitioner on 25th July, 1996 directed the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the order. Under this notice, the petitioner apprehends arrest and, therefore, applied for grant of anticipatory bail. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had directed Mazda Industries Leasing Ltd. to redeem 10 debentures and pay interest from the year 1993. Since the said direction was not complied by the Company, the petitioner as its Managing Director has been issued said show cause notice directing him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for non-compliance of the said order. Though, the prayer in the application is for grant of anticipatory bail, Mr. Marwadi for the petitioner stated that the petitioner desires to approach appropriate Court and the only direction that he shall not be arrested for a period of four weeks from today to enable him to approach the appropriate Court and obtain necessary orders be passed. Mr. Behere, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has nothing to submit in this regard. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested for a period of four weeks from the date of this order during which period the petitioner shall take necessary step to appear before appropriate Court and obtain necessary orders.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforestated terms. ........... Anticipatory bail allowed. Rule made absolute.