IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 980 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/04/2002 in WP NO : 7638 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Niziveedu Seeds Ltd. 6-12,Brodiper,Guntur rep.by tiss Manager Sri Sartaj Mohd. Khan ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.Jagadish S/o.A.Ramdas Wind Energy Conosultant 2/210, 1st Floor, Nawabpet, Nellore 2 The District Consumer Disputes Rederessal Forum Nellore .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.P.ANILKUMAR REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 980 of 2002 JUDGMENT: ( Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the Order passed in W.P.No.7638 of 2002, dated 23.4.2002 by the learned single Judge, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner, who has filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the complaint filed by the 1st respondent vide CD No.133 of 2002 before the 2nd respondent, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge having observed that all the questions raised are not purely questions of jurisdiction, but jurisdictional facts, which can be adjudicated by the Forum duly constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dismissed the writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that on the complaint filed by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has taken cognizance of the same. On that, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking to set aside the same. In view of the pendency of the case before the forum, the contentions that have been raised before this Court, are premature one and apart from that, they cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings inasmuch as they are hit by the principles of sub judice. In this view of the matter, We feel that the learned single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition and therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-appellant is at liberty to raise all the objections in his reply to the notice of the 2nd respondent, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the complaint shall be disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of three months. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Dated: 29.7.2008 Nn/gurc. HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 980 of 2002 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29th JULY, 2008