IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34764 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HAR AUTOS PRIVATE LIMITED, HAR AVENUE, KANNOTHUMCHAL, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI.SALAHUDEEN. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SEEDHI, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, SHAKEER MANZIL, UDAYAVARA, MANJESWARAM PO, KASARGOD 671545. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARGOD 671545, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRUVANDRUM 695001, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.34764/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CC NO.182/2010 DT 10.2.11. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDNATION OF DELAY. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCKET PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 25.10.11 IN WPC NO.28452/11. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT4.11.11 IN IA NO.1050/11 IN APPEALNO.514/11. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPNO.28452/11 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 12.12.11 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TRIVANRUM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34764 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8, an order passed by the 3rd respondent vacating the said order passed by it in IA NO.1050/11 in Appeal No.514/2011. The reason stated is that, the said order was passed without disclosing the conditional interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.28452/11 on 25th of October, 2011. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am in full agreement with the 3rd respondent that the petitioner should have disclosed about Ext.P5 when the said petition was heard by the State Commission on 4/11/11. In view of the above, I see no reason to disagree with Ext.P8. Be that as it may, even if the petitioner has any justification to offer in the matter, it is for the petitioner to move the Commission itself seeking variation of Ext.P8. Writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp