IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER 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.21943 of 2008 Between: B. Pardhasaradhi, S/o. Late Sri Rama Sastry, R/o. H.No.4-20, Vikasanagar, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt. V. Tripursundari, W/o. K. Purnachandra Rao, R/o. 1-13-114/3, Margadarsi Colony, Saroornagar, R.R.District. 2 The District Consumer Forum, R.R. District, Rep by its President. 3 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar. ...RESPONDENS 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of certiorari calling for the records in and relating to the order dated 30.01.2008 of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy as modified by the order dated 11-06-2008 in R.P.No.156 of 2007 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court and violative of Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V.V.N. Narasimham Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr. T. Ramulu Counsel for Respondents Nos.2 and 3: GP, Civil Supplies The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The circumstances leading to filing of this petition, in a nutshell, are as under: C.D.No.38 of 2003 was decided by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the present respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21-09-2004, passed in C.D.No.38 of 2003, both the parties, namely the present petitioner as well as the respondent had filed F.A.Nos.1308 of 2004 and 386 of 2005. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, confirmed the order passed in C.D.No.38 of 2003. Though it is not on record, the learned advocates have admitted the fact that the afore-stated order passed by the State Commission had been challenged before the National Commission and the said order had been confirmed even by the National Commission. Though the authority has passed an order in favour of the present respondent, the same has not been complied with, and, therefore, execution proceedings have been initiated before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, being E.A.No.26 of 2007. After hearing the concerned advocates, on 08-11-2007, an order was passed in E.A.No.26 of 2007 in C.D.No.38 of 2003. (this has been also referred as P.P.No.26 of 2007 in C.D.No.38 of 2003). Being aggrieved by the above order passed in E.A.No.26 of 2007, the present petitioner had approached the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission by filing R.P.No.156 of 2007. The said reference petition has been dismissed on 11-06-2008. However, the State Commission was pleased to grant six weeks time for doing the needful. Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition has been filed. The initial order which had been passed by the District Forum in C.D.No.38 of 2003 has been modified a little, but has been confirmed even upto the National Commission. This being execution proceedings, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. We may note here that certain suggestions were made to the petitioner so as to help him in the matter of execution, so that grievance of the respondent is also redressed. But, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has refused to accept any suggestion coming from the court. In the afore-stated circumstances, we do not find any substance in the petition and the same is rejected. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December 18, 2008 MRR