HC raps Mumbai suburban collector for 13-year delay in enforcing consumer forum order
Bombay High Court criticized Mumbai collector for 13-year delay in enforcing a recovery certificate against a builder, ordering action within three months.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has pulled up Mumbai Suburban district collector for failing to act for nearly 13 years on a recovery certificate issued by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum against a local builder.
A division bench of justices M S Sonak and Advait M Sethna said it was “quite shocked” to find that the certificate, issued in 2012, had not been executed. The judges stressed that recovery certificates — which empower authorities to collect penalties or dues ordered by consumer courts — must be enforced quickly. “The entire purpose of the consumer movement will collapse if the collector sits tight on such executions,” the bench observed.
The case was filed by 65-year-old Heena Kashmiri, a Jogeshwari West resident. In 2008, she had approached the consumer forum against Nityanand Builders and Developers for not handing over her flat in the ‘Satellite Heights’ project. On February 6, 2010, the forum directed the builder to give her possession and pay compensation of ₹20,000 per month from December 31, 2005, until the handover.
When the builder did not comply, Kashmiri sought execution of the order. On July 19, 2012, the forum issued a recovery certificate and sent it to the collector to recover the penalty amount. But the authorities failed to act, forcing Kashmiri to move the high court last year.
{{/usCountry}}When the builder did not comply, Kashmiri sought execution of the order. On July 19, 2012, the forum issued a recovery certificate and sent it to the collector to recover the penalty amount. But the authorities failed to act, forcing Kashmiri to move the high court last year.
{{/usCountry}}The builder opposed her petition, claiming they had filed an appeal against the consumer forum’s order. The court, however, noted that the appeal was filed 14 years late, without securing any stay, and said this was no excuse for non-compliance.
{{/usCountry}}The builder opposed her petition, claiming they had filed an appeal against the consumer forum’s order. The court, however, noted that the appeal was filed 14 years late, without securing any stay, and said this was no excuse for non-compliance.
{{/usCountry}}The bench has now directed the collector to enforce the recovery certificate within three months and file a personal affidavit confirming compliance by December 31, 2025. It also asked the consumer forum to decide within three months on Kashmiri’s plea seeking penal action against the builder under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for imprisonment of one month to three years for wilful non-compliance with consumer court orders.
{{/usCountry}}The bench has now directed the collector to enforce the recovery certificate within three months and file a personal affidavit confirming compliance by December 31, 2025. It also asked the consumer forum to decide within three months on Kashmiri’s plea seeking penal action against the builder under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for imprisonment of one month to three years for wilful non-compliance with consumer court orders.
{{/usCountry}}