IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15732 of 2003 Between: 1 The General Manager, The Hyderabad Dist. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., D.No.5-4-448, Nampally Station Road, Beside Annapurna Hotel, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Branch Manager, The Hyderabad Dist. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.. Vanasthalipuram Branch, N.G.Os Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The District Consumers Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. at Hyderabad. 3 Smt. D. Aruna, W/o. Koteswara Rao C/o. V. Lakshmi Devi, B-942, N.G.Os. Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 4 D. Prasanna, D/o. Koteswara Rao B-942, N.G.Os. Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus : i) declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 in Revision case No. 178/2003 dated 1-7-2003 confirming the order of the Respondent no.2 in I.A. No.59/2002 in C.D. No.31/2002 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. ii) direct the Respondents No.1 & 2 to permit the Petitioners to cross examine Respondents No. 3 & 4 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1&2: None appeared Counsel for Respondents 3 & 4: Mr.Damaraju Venkata Madhusudhan Rao The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri BRSR.J) None appeared on behalf of the writ petitioners to press this writ petition for hearing when we have taken up the same on 21.3.2005, both in the morning and in the afternoon. Even today, there is no appearance. We have perused the order dated 1.7.2003 on the file of the State Commission where under the commission permitted the petitioners to put the questions by way of an affidavit to the complainant to be answered by the complainant by way of an affidavit. The procedure adopted before the redressal agencies, no doubt, is one of summary nature. The Commission having regard to the procedure that is being followed by the redressal agencies and in the interest of justice passed appropriate orders permitting the questions to be put by way affidavit to the complainant to be answered by the complainant by way of an affidavit. We do not find any legal infirmity or error to have been committed by the Commission. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J) DATED 22.3.2005 _________________ (C.V.RAMULU,J) msv. To 1 The State Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, A.P. Hyderabad. 2 The District Consumers Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. at Hyderabad. 3 2 CD copies.