The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain petitions against the State Commission.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mahima Pahwa, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1.

2. At the very outset, Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, contends that he does not intend to file any counter affidavit and the matter may finally be decided. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter.

3. The instant petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs :

"(i) Set aside/quash the judgment dated 21.07.2022 passed in Execution Application no. EA/43/2018 in complaint Case no. C/2011/136 (Ganesh Shankar Tripathi vs. Lucknow Development Authority), a certified copy of which is contained as annexure no. 1 to this petition.

(ii) Direct the opposite party no.2 to consign the proceedings to records of Execution Application no. EA/43/2018 in complaint Case no. C/2011/136 (Ganesh Shankar Tripathi vs. Lucknow Development Authority) pending before it after declaring that the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2015 has been fully complied and satisfied."

4. The facts of the case have already been set forth by this Court in order dated 23.08.2022, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below :

"Heard.

Under challenge is the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an execution case, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the learned Commission has directed that till the next date no plot in Gomti Nagar or Gomti Nagar Extension shall be allotted, registered, transferred or auctioned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no.1, the complainant, had filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1986'), which was decided vide order dated 21.08.2015, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby the learned Commission directed the petitioner herein (Lucknow Development Authority) to deliver the possession of plot measuring 200 sq. meters in Gomti Nagar or in any other scheme in terms of the allotment letter dated 25.10.1993 along with cost. Subsequent thereto, the Lucknow Development Authority issued an allotment letter dated 18.04.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, allotting the complainant a plot in Sharda Nagar Extension Scheme. Being aggrieved, the execution case was filed by the complainant before the learned Commission. Learned Commission had perused the allotment letter offered by the petitioner in Sharda Nagar scheme and being not satisfied with the same has passed the impugned order, as indicated above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment passed by the learned Commission dated 21.08.2015 stood complied with the issuance of the allotment letter inasmuch the learned Commission had directed for delivering the possession of a plot in Gomti Nagar Lucknow or in any other scheme and as now through the allotment letter which has been issued to the complainant a plot has been offered in the Sharda Nagar Extension scheme, as such, the judgment passed by the learned Commission has been complied with. He also contends that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the order has not been complied with then too the learned Commission could not have passed the order in the execution proceedings whereby restraining the Lucknow Development Authority from allotting or registering or transferring or auctioning any plot in Gomti Nagar Scheme inasmuch as the orders in execution cases under the provisions of the Act, 1986 can only be passed in terms of Sections 25 and 27 of the Act, 1986 which do not contemplate passing of the order impugned.

Ms. Mahima Pahwa, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, prays for some time to address the Court on the aforesaid issue.

As such, on her request, list this case in the next week as fresh indicating her name in the cause list from the side of the respondents."

5. Shri Prashan