Trouble brews for NCDRC members after Supreme Court notice to them for contempt of court

The Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for flouting a March 1 order to refrain from taking any coercive action against a real estate firm..A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah today issued a contempt of court notice to the NCDRC members, who had issued Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) to the company's directors despite the top court's stay order. The two NCDRC members, Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, were personally present before the Supreme Court today..The Bench had earlier asked the two members to explain why they should not be proceeded against for wilful disobedience of the top court's order.While the members tendered affidavits explaining that their lapse was unintentional and inadvertent, the Court was not convinced by the same..After interacting with the two NCDRC members, and their counsel, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, the Court reiterated today that it was not satisfied with the explanation given by the two members. "In deference to you appearing, we are asking you point blank. Are you pressing the affidavit you filed? Yes or no. There will be deep penal consequences, we find it to be defying ... You have to be careful about what you (NCDRC members) sign!" Justice Amanullah said, while addressing the AG. .AG Venkataramani tendered an apology on behalf of the NCDRC members and submitted that their error was not deliberate. "I sincerely and unconditionally apologise (on behalf of the members) ... Please do not comprehend anything as being deliberate. Maybe I failed to convey," the AG said.The Court, however, remained unimpressed."NBWs were issued no less," Justice Kohli remarked. "Mockery of this court. Absolute impunity," Justice Amanullah weighed in."Why they did not withdraw their order? We had tied their hands but they flouted our order!" Justice Kohli went on to remark. "They should have recalled the order immediately. Don't be hyper-technical ... They should have withdrawn without discussing next dates ... They acted defiantly," Justice Amanullah added. .AG Venkataramani, however, urged the Court to take a lenient view. "With the greatest respect. I can ask them to give further explanation," he suggested. .The NCDRC members, meanwhile explained that they were under the impression that they could not withdraw their order once it had been passed. "Why not? we are talking of life and liberty here. They would have been behind bars if (the NBWs were) executed! What about that?" Justice Kohli replied. "How do you refuse to comply ... in one breath? You are throwing a challenge in the face of the Supreme Court after noting our order," Justice Amanullah added..When NCDRC member, Chandra accepted that there was a mistake, the Court said,"Sorry, that is not what your affidavits say. Please appreciate. Seniormost officer of the government is assisting us no less. He can only (assist) till a point. Ordinarily, we would not have called you forward.".The Court proceeded to issue contempt of court notices to the two members. "We will issue notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for wilful disobedience of our orders," the Court told the two members, before dictating an order to this effect. However, the Bench also gave the two members an opportunity to file another, better affidavit explaining their conduct. The members have been asked to file their affidavits within ten days and remain present on the next date of hearing..Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar with Advocate Roohe Hina Dua appeared for the realty company, Ireo Grace, against whose directors the NCDRC's contentious order was passed. .The case before the Court has its origin in consumer complaints filed by homebuyers who were aggrieved by the failure/ delay in handing over possession of flats in Gurugram's 'The Corridor' housing project.After the homebuyers secured orders of compensation from the NCDRC, various execution proceedings were initiated by them before the national consumer form against the project developer, Ireo Grace.The project developer (Ireo Grace) then approached the Supreme Court with civil appeals challenging such an award of compensation.On March 1, the Supreme Court gave interim protection to Ireo Grace while issuing notice on the civil appeals. By this interim order, the Court restrained the NCDRC from taking any coercive steps against Ireo Grace.However, in one of the several execution proceedings initiated by homebuyers, a two-member Bench of the NCDRC passed an order on April 2, issuing non-bailable warrants against the directors of Ireo Grace after the company failed to file certain compliance affidavits.