1. Different respondents in these petitions filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Mangalore. It is not in dispute that all the complaints were allowed pursuant to various orders. Since the money was not deposited as directed by the Consumer Forum, execution proceedings were initiated. In the said proceedings, the non-bailable warrant was issued which appears, was the subject – matter of writ petitions before this Court. This Court has upheld the validity of Section 27(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It appears, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the District Forum on 3-8-2009 but however on the said date the petitioner could not appear. Hence, non-bailable warrant was issued on 2-9-2009 returnable by 7-10-2009. The said order of issuing of non-bailable warrant is questioned before this Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be present before the Consumer Forum as he was not aware that he was required to be present before the forum on 3-8-2009. He submits that on the next date of hearing i.e., on 28-10-2009 he would be present before the Consumer Forum.

3. I have perused the order. Without going into the controversy as to whether the petitioner was aware of the order of this Court to be present before the forum on 3-8-2009, I am of the view that non-bailable warrant shall not be given effect to till 28-10-2009, on which date, the petitioner shall appear before the District Consumer Forum and seek recalling of the non-bailable warrant.

With this observation, all the petitions stated disposed of. It is open for the Consumer Forum to impose such conditions as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.