IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16288 of 2008 Between: Md. Muzzafar Khan S/o M.A. Jalil, R/o 6-3-151/1/A, N.H-7 Aramghad, Shivarampally, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The President, District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, PS Rajendranagar Cybeabad. .....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 call for the records relating to the executed impugned Non-Bailable Warrant pertaiing to the year 2005 and subsequent pending impugned NBW dated 17-1- 2006 both issued U/s. 27 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 in connection with the P.P. No. 20/2003 in C.D. No. 117/1998 on the file of District Forum Ranga Reddy and quash the NBW dated 17-1-2006 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without jurisdiction and same is violation fundamental rights by issuance fo a Writ of Certiorari and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MAMIDI VENU MADHAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The grievance, which the petitioner has ventilated in this petition, is with regard to the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant on 17-1-2006 by the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in no way concerned with any proceedings pending before the said Forum, yet a Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued. According to him, though he appeared before the District Consumer Forum once, again a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued. In our opinion, the appropriate course open to the petitioner is to approach the District Consumer Forum with an appropriate application for cancellation of the Non- Bailable Warrant. It appears that no such application has been made to the Forum. In the circumstances, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he would approach the District Consumer Forum with an appropriate application and we are sure that if such an application is filed, the said application will be considered as soon as possible on merits. The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 29th July, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR