IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9623 of 2009 Between: M/s,. Saptavandana Chits and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director , Office at 408 & 409 Swapnalok Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rep. by its Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Chandrakanth Sarma S/o.Shri H.K. Sharma R/o. H.No. 32-161/2 Plot No. 28, S.V. Officers Colony,. R.K. Puram Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to FA IA NO. 2430 of 2008 in F.A.No. 1291 of 2008 dt. 15-4-2009 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent of directing the petitioners to deposit 100 % amount besides the statutory and further permitting the 2nd respondent herein to withdraw the said amount so deposited by the petitioners without furnishing any security and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : order :: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9623 of 2009 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to FA IA No.2430 of 2008 in FA No.1291 of 2008 on the file of AP State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit 100% amount, besides the statutory deposit and further permitting the 2nd respondent to withdraw the said amount deposited by the petitioner, without furnishing any security. 2. This Court by order dated 1-5-2009, passed the following order: Notice before admission. All further proceedings, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, may go on in FA No.1291 of 2008. The petitioner is directed to deposit the entire amount as ordered by the State commission, if not already deposited, within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the 2nd respondent is permitted to withdraw 50% of the said deposited amount and the State Commission shall kept the remaining 50% in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank.” 3. Now learned counsel for the petitioner stated that inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the 1st respondent- State Commission, the appeal may be directed to be disposed of making the interim order granted by this Court as final order in this writ petition. 4. Though served none appeared for the 2nd respondent. Since the statutory appeal is pending before the appellate authority, without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the above appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then the order dated 1-5-2009 passed by this Court to continue. No costs. ___________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________________ Nooty Ramamohana Rao,J Dated :12-10-2009 Nrg.