(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Rule. By consent, rule is heard forthwith.

2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner seeks to quash the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai dated 5 August and 9 July 2012 which have been delivered in Execution Application No.10/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.06/2007.

3. What we are presently concerned with are prayers (b-1) and (b-2) which read as under: “b-1) That it may be declared that the provision of Sec. 27 (3) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is in contravention of provisions of Chapter XIV Cr. P.C relating to the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate. b-2) And/or in the alternative the provisions of Sec.27(3) Consumer Protection Act be declared illegal and invalid for being in direct contravention of the procedural law laid down under Cr.P.C being applicable to the proceedings U/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.”

4. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “Act of 186”) is null, void and