IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.26784 OF 2009 DATE:08.12.2009 Between: M/s. Suchirindia Properties Pvt. Limited and another …… Petitioners And: The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and 2 others …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.26784 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 21.07.2009 in C.C.No.306 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad and consequential order dated 04.11.2009 in FAIA No.2169 of 2009 in F.A(SR)No.4885 of 2009 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad as arbitrary and illegal, and to declare that the 3rd respondent is not a “Consumer” of the petitioner company as defined under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that the petitioner company has filed F.A(SR) No.4885 of 2009 before the 1st respondent/A.P. State Commission against the order in C.C.No.306 of 2009 of the 2nd respondent/District Forum-III, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent on erroneous consideration of law and facts of the case in F.A.I.A.No.2169 of 2009, directed the petitioner company to deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. Since it is only a discretionary order passed by the 1st respondent/A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad staying the execution of N.B.Ws issued against the petitioners on deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- within four weeks before the State Commission, Hyderabad, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition questioning the orders passed by the District Forum-III, Hyderabad in C.C.No.306 of 2009. It is well settled that when a statutory appeal is pending before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad against the order passed by the District Forum-III, Hyderabad, a writ petition questioning the order of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad cannot be entertained as per the law laid down in a reported decision Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay Vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Limited[1]. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) before the A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad within two weeks from today i.e., 08.12.2009 and on such deposit being made by the petitioners, the A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad shall keep the same in Fixed Deposit till the disposal of the appeal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:08.12.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.26784 OF 2009 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) DATE:08.12.2009 GK. [1] 1995-SCC (1) 642