JUDGMENT :

Amit B. Borkar, J.

1. Since all these petitions seek the same relief and involve a similar factual matrix, we are disposing of them by one judgment.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. Since we treat Criminal Writ Petition No.199/2021 as a lead petition, we refer to parties and pleadings as stated in Criminal Writ Petition No.199/2021. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:-

“(A) Declare Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to be ultra-vires the Constitution of India.

(B) Quash and set aside the order dated 17th February 2020 (Annexure-P1) passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. 232 of 2018; and

(C) Remand the Consumer Complaint no. 232 of 2018 for a re-hearing before the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur; and

(D) Quash and set aside the prosecution of offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in case bearing no. EA/20/84 pending before the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur; and

(E) Stay the effect, operation, and execution of the order dated 17th February 2020 (Annexure-P1) passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint no. 232 of 2018 and consequently, case bearing no. EA/20/84 pending before the learned Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur during the pendency of this petition; and

(F) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause (E) above; and

(G) Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. The facts necessary for adjudication of challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) are as under:-

On 17.02.2020, the District Consumer Forum passed an order signed by only two Members without the President being party to it. By the said order, the petitioners-developers were directed to execute the Sale Deed of Plot No. 34 and deliver possession of the said plot. The petitioners, instead of availing statutory remedy under the provisions of the said Act, have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the judgment mainly on the ground that the exercise of powers by the District Consumer Forum without the President being its party is illegal. Section 29A of the Act, which permits the District Forum to pass judgment without the President, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. This Court, on 02.03.2021, issued notice to the respondents. Respondent no. 3 filed its reply stating that the petitioners have the statutory remedy of appeal and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Respondent no. 3 has placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Yashwant Mahavidyalaya Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Wardha Vs. Kishor S/o. Gangasagarji Dube (Writ Petition No. 4036/2018) and Yashwant Mahavidyalaya Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Wardha Vs. Ashadevi Gangasagarji Dube (Writ Petition No. 2751/2018) decided on 31.07.2019. Reliance is also placed on Section 22 of the Act, which deals with the contingency of the vacancy of the President. It is submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court, while delivering the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabhuthi House Building Co-operative Society [(2003) 2 SCC 412] has already upheld the virus of the said Act. It is stated that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, has been enforced from 20.07.2020 by repelling the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the result present challenge to Section 29A of the said Act becomes infructuous.

6. The respondent no. 4 has also filed a reply stating that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gulzari Lal Agrawal Vs. Accounts Officer [(1996) 10 SCC 590] has held that