The arrest warrants were issued after Doshi allegedly failed to comply with orders of consumer forums in Kottayam, Amritsar, Trivandrum, Coimbatore and New Delhi which directed him to refund booking amounts for non-delivery of Premier 1.38 D and Uno cars manufactured by PAL in collaboration with foreign companies.

Doshi filed a petition in the high court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, under which the arrest warrants were issued by the consumer forums.

The court has, in an ad-interim injunction, restrained the police from arresting Doshi until June 30 when the petition would be heard for admission. Additional publicprosecutor DA Nalawade has till then sought time to make his submissions.

PAL invited a booking amount of Rs 21,000 for the Uno manufactured in collaboration with Fiat Auto of Italy between January 24, 1996, and February 15, 1996. The company received 2,90,662 bookings.

PAL had also invited a booking amount of Rs 20,000 for its Premier 1.38 D cars manufactured jointly with Peugot of France from December 1993 to February 1994. Altogether, 51,000 bookings were recorded by the company.

Doshi's petition contended that 2,52,700 bookings of the Uno were cancelled as on March 1999 and refunds in 2,40,500 cases were made. However, 12,000 persons did not receive the booking advance due to various reasons including change of address and non-completion of formalities. About 2,200 refund orders sent to various destinations were returned as unserved.

In the case of 1.38 D cars, PAL could not refund booking advance in 4,500 cases in time on account of various reasons, inter alia, financial crisis. Between June 5,1996, and November 24, 1996, there was a partial lock-out in the company due to labour problem, as a result of which PAL suffered heavy losses.

Several persons who did not receive the refund orders in time approached various consumer disputes redressal forum.

Doshi contended that persons who had made the bookings could not be termed as `consumers' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Yet, their complaints were entertained and adjudicated by various consumer forums, which directed PAL to refund booking amounts with interests.

He said even though the company was aggrieved with such orders, it decided to comply with them rather than filing appeals. Unfortunately, due to lock-out and voluntary retirement opted by 1,100 employees coupled with the recession in the automobile industry, refunds were not made in time.

Doshi alleged that on April 2 last, the senior inspector of Kurla police station had attempted to arrest him under instructions from the commissioner. He argued that none of thewarrants issued under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act is executionable, because the provision was illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the constitution.

Doshi contended in his petition that under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaints could be filed with the state commission or national commission if orders of the district forum were not complied with. The appropriate forum would then direct filing of complaint in a competent court in view of the provision laid down in Section 4 of the CrPc.

However, he said, directly inflicting punishment (through arrest warrants by consumer disputes redressal forum or the state or national commission was ultra vires Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act contemplated unconstitutional action without allowing trial to be conducted. Hence, it deserved to be struck down.

Doshi submitted that in a civil case, particularly for recovery of amounts due from a company, action could only be initiatedgenerally against the establishment and its assets. Shareholders, employees or directors could not be personally fastened with any liability on account of the amount due from the company.

It was argued that Doshi was only a director of the company and, hence, he could not be personally made liable for the amount due from the company. The issuance of arrest warrants was against the basic principles of natural justice. Besides, the impugned Section 27 infringed upon the right to personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution, he contended.