HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28150 OF 2010 Between: M/s Maytas Properties Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory. ………….Petitioner AND A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission represented by its President, Hyderabad and three others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in dismissing the petitioner’s application in CCIA No. 2067 of 2010 in CC No. 63 of 2010 dated 30.09.2010 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as illegal and quash the same. When the matter is taken up for disposal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter is squarely covered by the Common judgement of this Court dated 29.4.2011 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 18276, 27689, 18154 of 2010 and batch, wherein this Court observed as under: “Having regard to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD ( supra) with regard to Section 3 of the 1986 Act and the ratio in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( supra), (1994 (1) SCC 243), we are of the view that the 1986 Act, being a special enactment, created an additional remedy in favour of the consumers to raise consumer disputes before the Fora constituted under the said Act, and that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not have the effect of taking away such a remedy from the consumers as in the case of civil suits, which are in the nature of common law remedies. If a party chooses to avail a remedy other than the consumer dispute, he shall be free to do so because the remedy under the 1986 Act is not in derogation of the other remedies available to such a party and he cannot be denied such right on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, such as Arbitration Act as Section 3 of the 1986 Act is intended to provide an additional remedy to a party and the same is not meant to deny such a remedy to him. Further, by virtue of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act the parties can undoubtedly resort to filing of the complaint as specified under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The restriction as to the inherent jurisdiction would not come in the way for the complainant to file the complaint, provided he fulfils the conditions mentioned in section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it cannot be said that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint filed by respondents before it. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions are meritless and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.” Following the above judgment of this Court dated 29.4.2011 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 18276, 27689, 18154 of 2010, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 13.07.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.