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.20626 of 2008 Between: Sri P. China Penchala Reddy, S/o. Chenchireddy, D.No. 24-10-615, Weavers Colony, Rajahmundry. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri M. Uday Bhasker, S/o. Uday Bhasker, D.No. 40461/7, Dwaraka Nagar, Behind S.K. Jewellery Shop, Bommuru, Rajahmundry, Rural, Rajahmundry. 2 District Consumer Forum-II, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. 3 A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 pass an order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding that the common order dated 28- 07-2008 passed by A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission in Revision petitions 136, 137, 138 and 141/2008 upholding the orders in IA No. 190/2007 and IA Nos. 30, 31 and 32/2008 (in C.C. No. 89 of 2007) passed by District Forum, as being erroneous, illegal, and against the provisions of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 and the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 16124/2007; dt. 13-10-2007 and consequently direct the District Forum (2nd Respondent) to appoint an unrelated expert/civil engineer for the purpose of noting the physical features of the disputed structure in question Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.V. RAGHURAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ.) Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23-10-2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, whereby an advocate was appointed as commissioner for the purpose of noting down the leakages, cracks, defects in plumbing work, height of the building, material that was used, height of the basement and other physical features which might be pointed out by both the parties. The advocate commissioner was also permitted to take assistance of a qualified civil engineer for executing the warrant. Several interim applications had been filed by the petitioner before the District Forum. For sake of convenience, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had passed a common order in all the interim applications. The said common order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition so as to challenge validity of interim orders confirmed by the Commission. In our opinion, a common petition challenging an order dealing with different interim applications could not have been filed. In view of the above fact, we deal only with I.A.No.1890 of 2007, which was rejected on 23-10-2007 and against which R.P.No.140/2008 was filed before the State Commission. It would be open to the petitioner to file a separate petition for challenging validity of other orders passed in other interim applications. After hearing the concerned advocates, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court by way of this petition. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that an advocate is normally not competent to know the defects in the construction, and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the authority to appoint an advocate. According to him, an engineer ought to have been appointed. We do not accept the afore-stated submission because it is open to the advocate to take assistance of a qualified engineer. Moreover, the factors, which are to be considered by the advocate commissioner, are not highly technical and, in any case, it is open to him to take the help of a qualified engineer and in fact he has appointed an engineer to get help from him. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the engineer appointed by the advocate commissioner is related to one of the parties, i.e. he has alleged bias. In our opinion, this argument can also be advanced at the time of final hearing of the matter before the District Forum. As and when such objection is raised, we are sure that the District Forum would look into it. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no substance in this petition and the same is rejected. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December 18, 2008 MRR