IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 312 of 2009 Between: 1 The Chairman, Manupriya Finance and Permanent Fund L.G. Ram Lodge Complex, Jagtiyal, through its Chairman, L. Chandrashekar S/o. L.G. Ram aged 40 yrs, Occ: Chairman Of Manupriya Finance and Permanent Fund, Jagtiyal, Karimnagar District. 2 Kotha Konda Nandaiah S/o. Narasaiah Advocate/dManager, Manupriya Finance and Permanent Fund,L.G. Ram Lodge Complex, Jagtiyal, ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. 2 The Honourable District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar 3 Pidugu Satyanarayana Reddy S/o. Narsimha Reddy R/o. Ayodhya V/o. Raikal Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Mandamus declaring the order dt. 3-2-2005 by the 2nd respondent in C.D. No. 107 of 1999 and all the consequential actions including the N.B.W. issued in P.P. 50 of 2006 in C.D. 107 of 1999 and the common order dt. 28-11-2008 of the 1st respondent in FAIA No. 2870/2008 and FAIA No. 2869/2008 as arbitrary illegal, unjust non est without the authority of law and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner and issue the consequential directions set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed declaring the order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the second respondent in C.D No. 107 of 1999 and all the consequential actions including the NBW issued in P.P.50 of 2006 in C.D. 107 of 1999 and the common order dated 28.11.2008 of the first respondent in FAIA Nos. 2870 2008 and 2869 of 2008 as arbitrary and illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the third respondent herein filed a compliant for recovery of Rs. 2,21,520/- deposited under R.D. account with interest at 18% per annum together with damages of Rs. 3,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar District-second respondent herein. The second respdnent-Consumer Forum after considering the evidence, directed the petitioners herein to pay Rs. 2,21,520/- covered under recurring deposit account with interest at 9% per annum from 23.6.1997 together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein preferred the appeal along with I.A.No. 2869 of 2008 for condonation of delay of 1294 days in filing the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad- first respondent herein stating that they were unaware as to what has happened subsequent to the trial and alleging that the first petitioner was engaged as an Assistant Depot Manager by NOEL Pharma Company at Mumbai and the second petitioner has left the place of Jagityal for his personal occupation and they were unaware of the proceedings before the District Forum and their advocate colluded with the third respondent and did not file documents, which would show that the amount was paid and they were not liable to pay any amount and that the District Forum proceeded with the matter without giving a chance to prove their contentions. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad –first respondent herein dismissed the appeal holding that the Commission cannot consider the question of fraud in the appeal and that there are no grounds whatsoever to condone the abnormal delay of 1294 days. It was also observed that as against the impugned order dated 3.2.2005, P.P proceedings were also initiated and NBWs were issued against the petitioners and the petitioners were given four weeks time for compliance of the order and the NBWs were suspended during that period. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners approached this court by way of this Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the first respondent on an erroneous view of the facts dismissed the appeal on the ground that the delay is not properly explained On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rightly held that the question of fraud cannot be considered in the appeal and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction holding that the Commission cannot consider the question of fraud in the appeal and has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it with regard to the inordinate and unexplained delay. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material available on record. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the first respondent-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad requires any interference by this Court? It is seen from the record that the first respondent-Commission without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners or without inviting any counter, dismissed the appeal holding that the Commission cannot consider the question of fraud in the appeal. The Commission ought not to have dismissed the matter without giving an opportunity to both sides. When an application is made against the counsel, the first respondent-Commission should have given an opportunity to the petitioner instead of dismissing the same at threshold. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed on this ground alone. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad for disposing of the matter afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to both sides as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, interim stay granted shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 11.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies