Imprisonment under consumer protection laws requires clear findings of non-compliance, following procedural safeguards to protect personal liberty.

Order :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

The petitioner herein is the Managing Director of a company named ‘Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited’ which is involved in real estate business. The said company is said to have made a lay out of land in certain survey numbers of Vankayalapadu village of Pattipadu Mandal, Guntur District. These plots were offered for sale and various members of the public had entered into agreements for purchasing these plots and paid substantial amounts of money towards the purchase of these plots. However, neither the company nor the petitioner herein was completing the transactions by execution of necessary documents. The purchasers, contending that the company had never even purchased the land which is sought to be made into plots, had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur for compensation and refund of the amounts already paid to M/s. Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited. The respondents in these consumer cases were the petitioner described as a director of M/s. Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited and his wife who was also described as a director of Vijaya Saradhi Housing Private Limited.

2. These consumer cases, more specifically C.C.No.13 of 2019, C.C.No.20 of 2019 and C.C.No.32 of 2019 were allowed with directions to the opposite parties therein, to refund the sale consideration paid out by the complainant and to pay compensation and Costs. The said amounts being payable by within four weeks from the date of the order. As these orders were not complied, the consumers filed Penalty Petitions 4 to 6 of 2022 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur.

3. It appears that initially some steps were taken for arriving at a compromise in the matter. However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur by an order, dated 20.07.2022, had taken the petitioner herein into custody and forwarded the petitioner to the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C with a further remand warrant being addressed to the Superintendant, District Jail, Guntur for detaining the petitioner in the custody of the jail Superintendant till 03.08.2022. The custody order was passed by way of a common order in P.P.No.4 of 2022 in C.C.No.13 of 2019, P.P.No.5 of 2022 in C.C.No.20 of 2019 and P.P.No.6 of 2022 in C.C.No.32 of 2019. Thereafter, the other affected parties, who had already approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur against the petitioner and his wife had filed separate P.Ps for detention of the petitioner. These P.Ps are P.P.Nos.17 to 42 of 2019, 45 to 65 of 2022 and P.P.Nos.72 to 84 of 2022.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by his detention in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur from 20.07.2022 has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

5. Sri G. Sri Harsha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur did not have any power of detaining the petitioner for such a prolonged period and in any event, the power that is said to have been exercised under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 r/w Section 200 of Cr.P.C would have to be set aside on the ground that it has not followed the required procedure and has been passed without the conditions set out in Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being complied.

6. After notice, the respondents 4 to 6 had