An appeal against an interlocutory order, such as a bailable warrant, is not maintainable as it does not determine the substantive rights of the parties.

1. Heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, on maintainability of the appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or under Section 73 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 .

2. This appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dated 18.11.2020 passed in Contempt Application No.30 of 2020, Rajesh Channa Vs. Sanjay Saxena & Ors, issuing bailable warrant of Rs.50,000/- against the appellant and two other opposite parties in the application and fixed 13.01.2021 for appearance.

3. The office has submitted report that this appeal has been filed with delay of 342 days. The appellant has filed an application (i.e. I.A. No. 9394 of 2021) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It has been stated that Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, has waived the limitation from 15.03.2020 till 03.10.2021 as such starting point of limitation for the appeal would be 04.10.2021 and the appeal has been filed on 25.11.2021. There is delay of 23 days. Cause shown is sufficient. Subject to any objection of the respondent, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The counsel for the appellant submitted that State Commission by the impugned order has taken cognizance in the application under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and issued process against the appellant. The order taking cognizance is a substantive order. Issuing process of bailable warrant affects the liberty of the appellant. The appellant is an aggrieved person and his appeal under Section 73 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is maintainable. He relied upon the order of this Commission in First Appeal No.2403 of 2017, Rajesh J. Aeren Vs. Mukhtiar Singh Bal & Anr. decided on 16.01.2018 by which the appeal was entertained, against the order of summoning and finally allowed. He relied upon order of Full Bench of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 passed in Execution Application No.80 of 2016 in CC No.14 of 2015, Rajesh Kumar Rohatgi & Anr. vs. M/s. Unitech Limited & Anr., for the proposition that an Ex-Director of the company is not under any obligation to comply the order.

5. We have gone through the aforementioned judgements. In none of two cases referred above, maintainability of the appeal arising out of order summoning a party by way of bailable warrant/non-bailable warrant has been decided, as such these judgements are not precedent on the point of maintainability of the appeal. In the circumstances, we proceed to decide this issue. Section 27 and 27A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are as under:-

27.Penalties. —[(1)]Wherea trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial