THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.20408 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 29.04.2010, passed in R.P.I.A.No.745 of 2010 in R.P.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commission’) and for quashing the same. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The first respondent took gas connection from M/s. Kalpana Indane Gas Agency, Haranadhapuram, Nellore, giving the residential address as J.C.Prem Chand, 24/512, Mulapet, Nellore under S.V.No.221716 and later, he got the said connection transferred to M/s.Krishna Agency, Indane Gas Distributors, Nellore, giving the residential address as J.C.Prem Chand, Near Dega Apartment, Magunta Layout, Nellore and again transferred by way of Block-out from Krishna Agency to Vijaya Indane Gas Agency, the petitioner herein, with gas connection No.V.G.010988. He states that the petitioner had stopped gas supply to him for want of residential proof and No-objection certificate from the second respondent-Deputy Manager, LPG, Indian Gas, Nellore. Accordingly, he produced his proof of residence issued by the Tahsildar, Nellore, and even thereafter, the petitioner failed to supply gas to him, for which, he got issued a legal notice dated, 20.10.2008, to the petitioner and the second respondent, but in vain. Hence, he filed C.C.No.4 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore, (for short ‘the Forum’) seeking to direct the petitioner to supply gas to him regularly and for damages. During the pendency of the said C.C., the petitioner filed I.A.No.238 of 2009 for impleadment of the third respondent, who was having multiple connections in different names in the same house i.e., Plot No.334/335, Magunta Layout, near Dega Apartents, and that the gas connections in the name of the first respondent and another were delivered to him. The Forum while observing that respondent No.2 is proper and necessary party to the proceedings, issued notice to the proposed party and posted the matter on 05.10.2009. Though notice was served on respondent No.3, he did not contest the matter. On 09.02.2010, the Forum while observing that the proposed party is not a proper and necessary party and even without his presence, all the issues in the main CC can be answered, dismissed the said I.A., against which, the petitioner filed a revision being R.P.No.12 of 2010 before the Commission, seeking to set aside the said order. Along with the said revision, the petitioner filed I.A.No.745 of 2010 seeking to stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2009 and the Commission granted interim stay on 16.04.2010 and ordered notice by 29.04.2010. Thereafter, the Commission vacated the said stay and posted the matter on 02.06.2010, by order, dated 29.04.2010, which is now challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for second respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the Forum had initially observed that respondent No.3 is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and ordered notice to the proposed party, vide order dated 15.09.2010, it ought not to have dismissed I.A.No.238 of 2009 holding that the proposed party is not a proper and necessary party. He further contended that in the revision filed by the petitioner, though the Commission granted interim stay on 16.04.2010, it ought not to have vacated the same on 29.04.2010 even before serving notices on the proposed party and without any reasons. He further contended that respondent No.3, had obtained seven gas connections from M/s. Krishna Agency, Indian Gas Distributors, Nellore, in different names with regard to one house and thereafter, the same were transferred to the petitioner Gas Agency. He further contended that after the said transfer, the petitioner issued notice to respondent No.3, who in turn, surrendered only two cylinders to it and thereafter, the first respondent filed the said complaint. He further contended that as per the instructions for one house, one connection with two cylinders is only permitted, but as respondent No.3 had illegally obtained multiple connections from its earlier agency, he is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. As regards the service of notice on respondent No.3 is concerned, learned counsel contended that the Commission granted interim stay and ordered notice on 16.04.2010 adjourning the matter to 29.04.2010, and since 17th and 18th April, 2009 are Public Holidays, he sent notices on the respondents therein on 22.04.2009 after obtaining the copy of the said order and that the Commission without awaiting service of notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, ought not to have vacated the interim stay on 29.04.2010. 5. The Commission vide order dated 29.04.2010 passed the following: “Since the revision is against the interim order and the matter is still pending, there could not have been any difficulty for the revision petitioner to serve notice on the respondents in this revision. However, no notice was served. Obviously stay was obtained. In the circumstances, stay granted is vacated. Post on 02.06.2010 along with R.P”. 6. The controversy between the parties is with regard to impleadment of respondent No.3 in C.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore, which initially ordered notice to the proposed party on 15.09.2009, and later, declined to implead him holding that he is not a proper and necessary party to the complaint and on revision, the Commission, while granting interim stay, ordered notice to the respondents therein and thereafter, it vacated the said stay. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no sufficient time to serve notice on respondent No.3 since the petitioner sent notices only on 22.04.2009 after obtaining copy of the order because of the Public Holidays on 17th and 18th April, 2009, cannot be accepted as he has not taken positive steps to serve notice on the proposed party within time. When the notice is not served on the respondents, the matter cannot be decided. Since the order impugned was passed in the interlocutory application and the matter is seized up before the Commission and the Commission has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in serving notice on the proposed party, I do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference under certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah) Questioning the order dated 29.04.2010 passed in R.P.I.A. No.745 of 2010 in R.P. No.12 of 2010 by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the said order. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner herein is Vijaya Gas Agency. The 1st respondent herein is one Mr.J.Premchand, who initially filed C.C. No.4 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nellore alleging that the petitioner herein was not supplying the gas to him regularly and also claimed for damages. On receipt of notice in the said C.C., the petitioner herein filed detailed counter stating that the petitioner’s Company had imposed restrictions for supply of gas to a single address where multiple gas connections exist and the 1st respondent herein was found having multiple gas connections and therefore, the supply of gas was stopped. During the pendency of C.C. No.4 of 2009, filed by the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.238 of 2009 seeking to implead one Sri Nara Eswara Reddy as 3rd respondent in the above said C.C. and the District Forum vide its docket order dated 15.09.2009, after going through the allegations made in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, felt that Sri Nara Eswara Reddy is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and ordered to issue notice to the proposed party and the matter was directed to be called on 05.10.2009. Further, though the notice was served on the proposed 3rd respondent, he did not choose to resist the application but the District Forum on 09.02.2010, without giving any cogent reasons, dismissed the impleadment application holding that the proposed party is not a proper and necessary party and even without his presence, all the issues in the main C.C. can be answered. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2010, the petitioner herein filed a revision R.P. No.12 of 2010 before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad on the ground that the District Forum has not vested with the power of reviewing its own order and that too when there is no resistance from the proposed 3rd respondent and the same is passed without proper application of established judicial precedents and that the same is not supported by any cogent reasons. The petitioner herein, along with R.P. No.12 of 2010, also filed R.P. I.A. No.745 of 2010 seeking stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.4 of 2009, pending adjudication on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nellore, till disposal of the main revision petition. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, after considering the contentions raised and the documents placed on record, by order dated 16.04.2010 granted interim stay while directing the petitioner herein to serve the notice on the respondents and posted the matter on 29.04.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner herein, after receipt of a copy of the order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad had sent notice to the respondents on 22.04.2010, through the Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. When the matter was called on 29.04.2010, the counsel appearing for the petitioner had filed a Memo, enclosing postal receipts and copy of notice sent to the respondents, stating that he has sent the notices to the respondents on 22.04.2010 and the postal acknowledgments were not received. But, on 29.04.2010 in R.P. I.A. No.745 of 2010 in R.P. No.12 of 2010, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, without considering the Memo filed by the counsel, vacated the interim stay already granted on 16.04.2010, holding that since the revision is against the interim order and the matter is still pending, there could not have been any difficulty for the revision petitioner to serve the notice on the respondents. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that preliminarily, when the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.238 of 2009, seeking to implead the proposed 3rd respondent, the District Consumer Forum, after going through the material on record, was pleased to held that the proposed 3rd respondent is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. But, however, though the District Forum, once passed the order, has no power to review its own order, that too when there is no resistance from the proposed 3rd respondent, it reviewed and held that the proposed 3rd respondent is not a proper and necessary party and even without his presence all the issues in main C.C. can be answered, which is contrary to the earlier opinion that the proposed 3rd respondent is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. Assailing the same, the matter was carried to the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad for revision in R.P. No.12 of 2010 along with filing R.P. I.A. No.745 of 2010, seeking to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.4 of 2009 and the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad also, initially, after perusing the material on record, granted interim stay by its order dated 16.04.2010 and directed the petitioner to service the notice on the respondents. Accordingly, after receipt of a copy of the order, the petitioner sent notice to the respondents on 22.04.2010 through the Registered Post Acknowledgement Due. He also submitted that when the matter was called on 29.04.2010, since the notice sent and awaiting for acknowledgment, the counsel for the petitioner filed a Memo stating that the notice sent and awaiting for acknowledgment. But the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, without taking into consideration the Memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner, vacated the interim stay granted earlier, which is illegal. Having granted the stay, the petitioner had already complied with the condition of serving notice and the same was brought to the notice of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad by way of filing Memo and the same was not considered and vacated the stay. It is also submitted that when there was no specific direction to the petitioner to adopt particular mode of service, the petitioner had rightly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, the finding of the State Forum that there could not have been any difficulty for the revision petitioners to serve the notice on the respondents is not proper and justified. Further it is also submitted that initially both, District and A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad found that the proposed 3rd respondent is proper and necessary party to the proceedings having regard to the role played by him in getting multiple gas connections, which is contrary to the rules, even without there being any resistance by the proposed 3rd respondent, both District and State Commission without waiting for sufficient time have passed the orders against the petitioner. The observation, while vacating the stay granted, that no notice was served on the respondent is not justified since the notice was already sent and awaiting for acknowledgment. Non service of notice to the respondent cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, the reason given by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad is contrary to the facts on record and without any justification. Eventually, he submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the proposed 3rd respondent is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and if the proposed 3rd respondent is not brought on record, since the role played by him is crucial, it will not be possible to decide the main issue before the District Consumer Forum, filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner herein and thereby, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss, in the event of adjudicating the matter in favour of the 1st respondent herein by the District Consumer Forum. No resistance by the respondents. Without reiterating the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is expeditious to deal with the issue for which the present writ petition is filed whether the order dated 29.04.2010 passed in R.P. I.A. No.745 of 2010 in R.P. No.12 of 2010 by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad is proper and justified? It is not in dispute that initially, the District Consumer Forum felt that the proposed 3rd respondent is proper and necessary party to the proceedings and thereafter, reviewing its own order dated 15.09.2009 dismissed the implead application on 09.02.2010 holding that the proposed 3rd respondent is not a proper and necessary party and even without his presence all the issues in main C.C. can be answered. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, wherein also, initially interim stay was granted in R.P. I.A. No.745 of 2010 on 16.04.2010 while directing the petitioner to serve the notice on the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner sent notice on 22.04.2010 and was awaiting for acknowledgment and to that effect the counsel for the petitioner filed a Memo. But the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad without considering the said Memo, passed the following order, which reads as under: “Since the revision is against the interim order and the matter is still pending, there could not have been any difficulty for the revision petitioners to serve notice on the respondents in this revision. However, no notice was served. Obviously stay was obtained. In the circumstances, stay granted is vacated. Post on 02.06.2010.” From a perusal of the above order, it is obvious that the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad was of the view that no notice was served on the respondents but whereas, it is evident on the record that the petitioner sent notice on 22.04.2010 and awaiting for acknowledgment. Without considering the said aspect, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad vacated the interim stay, without giving any cogent reasons and it ought to have seen that if the proper and necessary party is not impleaded to the proceedings, there would be every chance of causing prejudice to the parties and therefore, it ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner for issuing fresh notice to the respondents and even thereafter also if the notice was not served, there is an alternative mode of service i.e. by way of paper publication. Without following any of the said procedure, I am of the view that the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad has wrongly passed the impugned order. At this juncture, it is necessary to look into Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which reads as under: “Meaning of service by post:- Where any (Central Act) or regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression “serve” or either of the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effect at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.” From a close reading of the above Section and from a perusal of the case of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner had complied with the order dated 16.04.2010 by sending notice to the respondent through the registered post with acknowledgement due but the grievance of the petitioner was that he was waiting for the acknowledgment of the notice sent and to that effect, the counsel filed a Memo. Without taking into consideration the fact that the notice sent by the petitioner through the registered post and awaiting acknowledgment, the observation of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad that no notice was served, in my opinion, is not proper and justified. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner filed a Memo before this Court to the effect that he sent notice to the respondents on 22.04.2010 at 11:25, which are returned unserved with an endorsement that “door locked, out of station and no such person in the apartment”. Further, other aspect to be noticed here that the present writ petitioner, Vijaya Gas Agency (Indane Gas Distributors), represented by its Proprietor Nadavati Nalini, W/o. Surendra, in a similar matter in I.A. No.237 of 2009 in C.C. No.3 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nellore sought for impleading one Sri Nara Eswara Reddy, contending that he is a proper and necessary party. By order dated 09.02.2010, District Consumer Forum, Nellore, dismissed the said I.A. Challenging the order of dismissal, the present writ petitioner carried the matter in revision before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in R.P. I.A. No.744 of 2010 in R.P. No.11 of 2010. By order dated 16.04.2010, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.3 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nellore and ordered notice by 29.04.2010. As notice was not served, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad by interim order dated 29.04.2010 vacated the interim order and posted the stay petition along with main R.P. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, Vijaya Gas Agency, filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.20409 of 2010. By order dated 23.08.2010, we have admitted the writ petition and ordered notice in the stay petition. But from a perusal of the proceedings of the present case, this Court on 18.08.2010 directed to print the name of Sri Thoom Srinivas for R-2 and today, the matter has been taken up for final disposal. Therefore, with a due respect to the order passed by my learned brother, I plead my inability in agreeing with the order, as such, I am of the view that when the similar matter is admitted by this Court, the present writ petition ought not have been dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 29.04.2010 passed in R.P. I.A. No.745 of 2010 in R.P. No.2 of 2010 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad is set aside and consequently the matter is remitted to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad for fresh disposal of the said I.A. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 23.08.2010. LSK