IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.16386 of 2011 Dated:18-08-2011 Between: M/S Sri Sai Chandana Constructions and another. ….Petitioners. And The District Consumers Redressal Forum-II and another. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No.16386 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This Writ Petitions seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not entertaining the copy application dated 24.05.2011 filed by the petitioners is illegal and void and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to entertain and issue certified copy of the Order dated 23.05.2011 passed in P.P.No.2 of 2011 in C.C.No.26 of 2008 on the file of 1st respondent. The writ petitioner’s counsel has pleaded that the Non- Bailable warrant was issued against the petitioners in P.P.No.2 of 2011 on 23.05.2011 and he has made the copy application on 24.05.2011 for issuance of the certified copy of the said Order and the same was not issued and the copy application was returned on 09.06.2011 as not maintainable. As per Xerox copy of the copy application filed by the writ petitioners, the writ petitioners made the copy application on 23.05.2011 for issuance of the copy of warrant on behalf of the J.Dr. and the same was returned with endorsement “incomplete description”. They resubmitted the same stating that the objections are complied with by mentioning in the copy application that the copy of the warrant issued against the J.Dr. for his reference. The said copy application was returned with endorsement “how the C.A. is maintainable.” Against the said Order the present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioners. As per the averments made in the writ petition, a N.B.W. was issued against the petitioners in P.P.No.2 of 2011 on 23.05.2011 and the allegation of the writ petitioners is that the 1st respondent has refused to furnish the copy of the said Order and in the prayer also the writ petitioners have prayed for direction to the 1st respondent to entertain and issue certified copy of the Order dated 23.05.2011 passed in P.P.No.2 of 2011 in C.C.No.26 of 2008 pending on its file, but whereas in the copy application, he has asked for certified copy of warrant issued against the J.Dr. Therefore, it is evident that he has not made proper copy application for issuance of certified copy of the Order dated 23.05.2011 passed in P.P.No.2 of 2011 in C.C.No.26 of 2008. Without making proper copy application for furnishing copy of the Order dated 23.05.2011 passed in P.P.No.2 of 2011 in C.C.No.26 of 2008, he cannot complain about the non-issuance of the said Order. Therefore, the writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the writ petitioners are at liberty to make proper copy application for obtaining the certified copy of the Order dated 23.05.2011 in P.P.No.2 of 2011 in C.C.No.26 of 2008 as claimed in the writ petition. There shall be no Order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:18-08-2011 Ksp