Calcutta High Court Sets Aside State Consumer Commission Order Sending Judgment Debtor To Correctional Home For Non-Execution Of Order

Calcutta High Court (“High Court”) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee set aside the West Bengal State Consumer Commission (“Commission”) order remanding the petitioner to ten days of judicial custody for failing to comply with directions to hand over the flat, execute the conveyance deed, refund the amount with interest and pay compensation to the homebuyer.

The High Court noted that the Commission exceeded its authority by invoking Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“Act”) and acting as if it had the powers of a Judicial Magistrate First Class even though the decree holder had not sought initiation of criminal proceedings for non-compliance of the order.

Background Fact

Petitioner (Judgement Debtor) challenged two orders of the Commission dated 4 September 2025 and 3 November 2025. These orders were passed during execution of an ex-parte consumer order that had directed him to hand over the flat, execute the conveyance deed, refund money with interest and pay compensation.

On 4 September, the Commission refused to accept his medical papers because they did not carry his thumb impression. It held that the documents were unreliable and issued a fresh warrant of arrest against him. Commission fixed 3 November for further consideration.

On 3 November, the petitioner was brought before the Commission under arrest. The Commission noted that he had not executed the conveyance deed or paid the refund, interest or compensation. His lawyer sought bail but the Commission rejected the request holding that bail would frustrate the execution process.

Commission then remanded him to Presidency Central Correctional Home for ten days. It directed the authorities to provide medical care and to produce him again on 13 November for payment and compliance with the earlier consumer order.

Therefore, Petitioner approached the High Court contending that he is bedridden and the Commission cannot enforce its order by issuing a warrant of arrest under criminal procedure. Petitioner submitted that only civil detention under the Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) is permissible and sought quashing of the impugned orders and his release.

Observation and Direction by High Court

High Court observed that to understand the issue, it must first look at sections 71 and 72 of Act. These provisions show that Commission orders are to be executed like civil court decrees and must follow Order XXI of the CPC.

High Court noted that section 72 operates on a different footing. It allows punishment when a judgment debtor fails to comply but the Act gives no guideline on when a decree holder should choose section 71 or section 72.

High Court held that both sections create independent remedies. A decree holder may use either and choosing one does not bar the other. Section 71 provides the civil execution route while section 72 offers a quasi-criminal remedy through imprisonment or monetary penalties.

High Court referred to the coordinate Bench ruling in Abdul Mani Molla Vs. State of W.B. and another which held that Commission orders may be executed through civil prison or attachment and sale of property and arrest warrants only compel appearance. It also noted that section 72 creates a separate penalty route where the Commission acts as a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

High Court observed that the Commission found no compliance with its directions on the conveyance deed, refund, interest, costs and compensation. Commission felt granting bail would defeat execution and therefore remanded the petitioner to judicial custody for ten days.

High Court held that the Commission acted under section 72 by using a quasi-criminal penalty mechanism instead of civil execution under the CPC. Court noted there was no indication of civil imprisonment or assessment of costs showing the Commission had assumed the role of a Judicial Magistrate First Class while remanding the petitioner.

High Court noted that the Commission used custody as a coercive tool to force compliance but such punishment requires a proper section 72 proceeding. It stressed that even under section 72 the person must receive a fair opportunity to defend themselves and natural justice must be followed.

High Court referred to Jolly George Varghese & another Vs. The Bank of Cochin (1980) where Supreme Court held that imprisonment must follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21. It found that the decree holder had not sought a section 72 offence proceeding, making the Commission's coercive arrest legally unsustainable.

High Court held that no offence proceeding had been initiated therefore issuing an arrest warrant and remanding the petitioner as an execution shortcut was illegal. Court allowed the petition by setting aside the orders dated 04.09.2025 and 03.11.2025 and directed the petitioner's immediate release while allowing the decree holder to proceed afresh under section 71 or section 72.

Case: Malay Bose Vs. Susmita Saha Ors.

Citation: CRR 4737 of 2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priyanka Sarkar

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Srijit Chakraborty, Mr. Sourya Mukherjee

For the State: Mr. Suman De, Mr. Anindya Sunder Chatterjee

Click Here To Read/Download Order