VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently stated that the consumer redressal commission must adhere to procedural safeguards protecting a citizen’s liberty before incarcerating any defaulter.
In a ruling that led to the immediate release of a realtor who had spent three years in jail, the court reaffirmed that human liberty is a fundamental right that must be protected diligently. It asserted that a violation of orders from the consumer redressal commission does not inherently warrant imprisonment.
This case emerged from complaints against Vijaya Saradhi Housing Pvt Ltd, a real estate firm based in Guntur, which had taken advances for plots of land at Vankayalapadu village but failed to deliver. Following complaints to the Guntur district consumer redressal commission, the commission ordered the company’s managing director, Syed Allabakshu, and his wife to refund the amounts with 12% interest, along with additional compensatory payments in 2019.
After Allabakshu failed to comply with the commission’s directives, penalty petitions submitted by the buyers led to the commission commencing enforcement actions in 2022. Following a series of delays, the commission issued a warrant against Allabakshu for his failure to appear.
On July 20, 2022, he was brought before the commission by the police, which remanded him for 14 days, a situation that extended over time. Challenging his detention, Allabakshu’s brother filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court.
After reviewing the case and hearing various arguments, the High Court pointed out that the commission’s remand under the Consumer Protection Act required a clear finding of non-compliance, which was not found in Allabakshu’s case. The court stressed that without such evidence, indefinite detention was unjustifiable.
Recognizing human liberty as a fundamental constitutional right, the High Court ordered Allabakshu’s immediate release and instructed the commission to retract any ongoing remand orders in related cases.
The bench, comprising Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Sumati Jagadam, clarified that this order does not hinder the commission from concluding inquiries into the penalty petitions and issuing appropriate rulings, uninfluenced by this decision.
