Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14707 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1242 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manappuram Finance Ltd. Its Registered Office At Manappuram House Kerala And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Law,Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogi Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Present petition has been filed alleging that the District Consumer Forum had proceeded to pass an order on 02.04.2024 against the petitioners whereby on the basis of a complaint made, directions were issued for payment of Rs.37,30,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7%, and a cost of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed. Other directions were also given. 4. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission. Initially, no order was granted in favour of the petitioners, however, subsequently, the matter was posted for hearing before the State Commission on 13.02.2025. On the said date, an order came to be passed staying the operation and effect of the order impugned before the appellate forum. The said order is on record at Page - 52. 5. It is stated that despite the order dated 13.02.2025, an order came to be passed whereby the entire branch of the petitioners was seized on 10.02.2025. Clearly, the order dated 13.02.2025 was subsequent to the said order. 6. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that an application was moved before the District Consumer Forum for directions to reopen the seals put on the branch of the petitioners company, however, the said application is lying undisposed before the District Consumer Forum. An application was also moved before the State Consumer Forum for directions to reopen the branch, which was seized. The State Commission recorded that as the order has already been executed, no further directions could be passed and the matter was directed to be posted for hearing on the date fixed. 7. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had deposited 50% of the amount awarded as a pre- condition before preferring the appeal and had also moved an application before District Consumer Forum that he was ready and willing to deposit the balance 50%, however, the entire branch has been seized as a result whereof the entire functioning of the petitioners company from the branch has come to a standstill. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioners had deposited 50% of the amount as a condition precedent for preferring the appeal and had also offered to pay the balance 50% of the amount, the continuation of sealing of the branch is wholly unjustified. The District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Forum ought to have passed orders on the application filed by the petitioners for de-sealing/reopening the premises. Having failed to do so, prima-facie, the rights of the petitioners company to carry business in terms of Art. 19(1)(g) of Constitution are adversely affected. 9. In view thereof, the sealing order dated 10.02.2025 is quashed. 10. Directions are issued for reopening the seal put on the branch of the petitioners company. Meaning thereby, the seals put on the branch shall be opened forthwith on the petitioners moving an appropriate application before the Naib Tehsildar. 11. The petitioners shall furnish security for the balance 50% amount by moving an appropriate application before the State Commission which shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal that is to be finally decided. 12. Present petition stands disposed off in above terms. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench