IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23138 of 2008 Between: Anand D. Patwari, S/o. D.B. Patwari, C/o. 5-4-83, T.S.K. Chamber, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman, A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Snehalatha Agarwal, W/o. Mahendra Agarwal, R/o. 21-6-685, Chelapura, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENS 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction a) to call for the records in CAIA No. 614 of 2008 in CD No. 28 of 2007 on the file of the Honorable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, A.P., Hyderabad and other connected records b) to quash the records in CAIA No. 614 of 2008 in CD No. 28 of 2007 on the file of the Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, A.P., Hyderabad by declaring them as illegal and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Wasim Ahmed Khan Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP, Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. A.G. Seetharam The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 23-07-2008 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, this petition has been filed. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the impugned order for the reason that in pursuance of the impugned order, a Commissioner has been appointed to collect and examine sample of the material used in the wall which had collapsed. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in pursuance of an application which had been filed at a belated stage and the petitioner had already got the material examined at an earlier point of time, and, therefore, it would not be necessary to have any further report from any authority. It has been further submitted that the wall had collapsed before considerably long period and therefore the material which might be sent for laboratory testing would not give complete and correct picture of the quality of work done by the petitioner. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner for the reason that the report which was procured by the petitioner at an earlier point of time was not at the instance of the Commission, but that was obtained by the petitioner for his benefit and it is not known as to why he had obtained the report. If, according to the petitioner, the report is not likely to give complete and correct picture with regard to quality of construction because of passage of time, it would be open to the petitioner to make such a submission before the Commission at the time when the matter is heard. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commission. On the contrary, this order would enable the Commission to have necessary evidence to decide whether quality of the construction was upto the mark. The petition is therefore rejected. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions, which have been urged in the petition, before the Commission. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. November 20, 2008 MRR