Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Although a review application has been filed as held in 2003 (6) SCC 675; AIR 1986 SC 1272 and AIR 1963 SC 946, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India operate in different fields. Judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution as held in AIR 1981 SC 344 and 2009 (7) SCC 1 and 1973 (4) SCC 225 and the decisions taken by the Executive or by the Judiciary, is subject to judicial review. The warrant of arrest has been issued in the execution case filed. Orders XX and XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure operate in different fields. Section 25 of the 1986 Act provides for enforcement of the order passed. Section 27 deals with appeals and the subject-matter of the review application was not the execution case but was from the order of the Consumer Forum dated 12th November, 2008. Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, in the event, the proceeding is without jurisdiction as held in 2007 (10) SCC 88 and the proportionality principle must be considered as held in 2006 (7) SCC 501 and 2000 (10) SCC 1. Section 25 of the 1986 Act provides for enforcement of orders of the Consumer Forum, so also Section 27. On a comparative reading of both the sections of the 1986 Act, it will appear that in Section 25 a lenient, view has been adopted than Section 27 which is a drastic step. No guideline exists for the difference of imposition of penalties in both the aforementioned sections. Therefore, the same is violative of Article14. Reliance is placed on AIR 1967 SCC 1581; 2003 (4) SCC 242 and 2004 (7) SCC 166. This is also violative of Article 21 as held in 2007 (3) SCC 587. Therefore, orders be passed as sought.