IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3209, 3214 & 3229 of 2008 Between: 1 V.V.Durga Prasad, S/o, V.Kotaiah, R/o. Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 M/s Vamshi Properties,a firm having its Office at Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr. V.V.Durga Prasad. Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 Vamshi Constructions Pvt Ltd., a Company having its Office a Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr. V.V.Durga Prasad. Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal, Commission, rep. by its Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 K.Maheshchandra Reddy, S/o. K.Jagadishwar Reddy, R/o. 33/C, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 3 K.V.Rajendra, S/o. K.J.Neelaratna R/o. Plot No. 127/A, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Mrs. Sundra Kaur, W/o. Avtar Singh R/o. Plot No.64 & 65,Shantiniketan Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad - 26. 5 T . Srinivas Chary, W/o. Durga Chary, R/o.D27, 6th Floor, Mittal Enclave, Lanikvasi Village, Chembul, Mumbai. (RR 3 to 5 are formal parties in this W.P.) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records pertaining to FA.IA NO.77/2008 in FA No.37/2008 dt.25.01.2008 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent of direction the petitioners to deposit 50 % of decretal amount, besides the statutory deposit and further permitting the 2nd respondent herein to withdraw the said amount as deposited by the petitioners, without furnishing any security. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. Shiv Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP, CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5: Mr. P. Radhiv Reddy WRIT PETITION No. 3214 of 2008 Between: 1 V.V.Durga Prasad, S/o, V.Kotaiah, R/o. Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 M/s Vamshi Properties,a firm having its Office at Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 Vamshi Constructions Pvt Ltd., a Company having its Office a Registered Office at 73, Millenium Royala, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal, Commission, rep.by its Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. K. Aruna, W/o. K. Maheshchandra Reddy, R/o. 33/C, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 3 K.V.Rajendra, S/o. K.J.Neelaratna R/o. Plot No. 127/A, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Mrs. Sundra Kaur, W/o. Avtar Singh R/o. Plot No.64 & 65,Shantiniketan Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad - 26. 5 T . Srinivas Chary, W/o. Durga Chary, R/o.D27, 6th Floor, Mittal Enclave, Lanikvasi Village, Chembul, Mumbai. (RR 3 to 5 are formal parties in this W.P.) ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records pertaining to FA.IA NO.79/2008 in FA No.39/2008 dt.25.01.2008 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Coommission, Hyderabad and quash the said as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent of directing the petitioners to deposit 50 % of decretal amount, besides the statutory deposit and further permitting the 2nd respondent herein to withdraw the said amount as deposited by the petitioners, without furnishing any security. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. Shiv Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP, CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5: Mr. P. Radhiv Reddy WRIT PETITION No.3229 of 2008 Between: 1 V.V.Durga Prasad, S/o, V.Kotaiah, R/o. Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 M/s Vamshi Properties,a firm having its Office at Rep.by its Managing Partner, Mr. V.V.Durga Prasad. Flat No.501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 Vamshi Construction Pvt.ltd.,,a company having its regd. office at 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal, Commission, rep.by its Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.K.Suguna, W/o. K.Jagadishwar Reddy, R/o. 33/C, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 3 K.V.Rajendra, S/o. K.J.Neelaratna R/o. Plot No. 127/A, Road No.62, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Mrs. Sundra Kaur, W/o. Avtar Singh R/o. Plot No.64 & 65,Shantiniketan Colony, Mahendra Hills, Secunderabad - 26. 5 T . Srinivas Chary, W/o. Durga Chary, R/o.D27, 6th Floor, Mittal Enclave, Lanikvasi Village, Chembul, Mumbai. (RR.3 to 5 are not necessary parties to this W.P.) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records pertaining to FA.IA NO.78/2008 in FA No.38/2008 dt.25.01.2008 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Coommission, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent of direction the petitioners to deposit 50 % of decretal amount, besides the statutory deposit and further permitting the 2nd respondent herein to withdraw the said amount os deposited by the petitioners, without furnishing any security. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. Shiv Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP, CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5: Mr. P. Radhiv Reddy The Court made the following: Common Order: (Per R. Subhash Reddy, J) As common question arises for consideration, on similar set of facts, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein are opposite parties 1, 4 and 5 in consumer cases in C.C.Nos.717, 718 and 719 of 2005, before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the District Forum’). The respondents/complainants filed the above C.Cs. before the District Forum seeking directions to the petitioners/opposite parties to register the sale deeds in respect of their respective flats with undivided share of land or alternatively to direct them to refund the amounts paid by them with interest from the date of the agreements till the date of realization, along with costs. 3. It is the claim of the respondents/complainants before the District Forum that the petitioners/opposite parties, having entered into agreements, for sale of flats and having received the full consideration, have not executed sale deeds in their favour and to cause loss to them, sold the said flats to third parties. The said claim was contested by the petitioners herein. However, by common order dated 31-10-2007, the District Forum directed the petitioners/opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant in C.C.No.717 of 2005 and Rs.5,00,000/- each to the complainants in C.C.Nos.718 and 719 of 2005, with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of the agreements till the date of realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/opposite parties preferred appeals, namely, FA Nos.37, 38 and 39 of 2008, before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the State Commission) and pending disposal of the appeals, sought interim orders by way of I.As. As interim measure, the State Commission, by the impugned order, granted interim stay of execution of the order passed by the District Forum, subject to the condition of the petitioners/opposite parties depositing half of the decretal amount, besides the statutory deposit, before the District Forum, within four weeks therefrom. 5. Now, it is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the State Commission, and further orders passed by this court on 18-02-2008, the said amounts have been deposited by the petitioners/opposite parties. 6. In these writ petitions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, amounts have been deposited before the Forum. However, it is pleaded that respondents/complainants may not be allowed to withdraw the same pending disposal of the appeal before the State Commission. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents/complainants that as much as the respondents/complainants have already succeeded before the District Forum and as they have paid the amount towards purchase money to purchase the flats, if they are not allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners/opposite parties, they will be put to hardship. 8. It is to be noticed that that the petitioners/opposite parties have filed appeals before the State Commission disputing the very jurisdiction of the District Forum, which had issued directions for payment of monies. It is the case of the petitioners/opposite parties before the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the money, which is sought to be recovered, is on account of a commercial transaction and hence the same is beyond the purview of the provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 9. In view of the pendency of the appeals, it is not desirable to record any definite finding on merits. In view of the grounds raised in the appeals, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned order of the State Commission to the extent of permitting the respondents/complainants to withdraw the amount, which is ordered to be deposited, without furnishing any security. The respondents/complainants are permitted to withdraw the amounts which are said to be deposited by the petitioners/opposite parties, in terms of the order passed by the State Commission and the order dated 18-02-2008 passed by this court, by furnishing security, to the satisfaction of the Registry of the State Commission. 10. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid modifications and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 30, 2008 MRR