( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Ghaziabad Development Authority, is a statutory body constituted under the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The petitioner no. 2 is Secretary of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and he is aggrieved by the orders dated 28. 2. 2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad convicting and sentencing him to six months imprisonment, vide Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is unconstitutional as it has not provided for any procedure for the trial. Learned counsel relied on a Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Paramjit Singh vs. Union of India 1999ctj 570 in which it was held that the proviso to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act is violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It was held by the Karnataka High Court therein that while the main part of Section 27 of the Act is not unconstitutional the provi