IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11993 of 2009 Between: The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Rajahmundry, represented by its Company Secretary Mr.C.Prabhakar S/o. C.Krishna Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Consumer Forum, Ongole, Prakasam District, represented by its President. 2 K.Srirama Murthy S/o.Somaiah R/o.Nidamanuru Village, Tanguturu Mandal, Prakasam District. .....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 to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders direction or directions to quash the order of the 1st Respondent in C.C.No.176/2009 dated 15.5.2009 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No. 11993 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 15.5.2009 in C.C.No.176 of 2009 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongol 2. The second respondent approached the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the petitioner to pay Rs.7,33,700/- for the loss caused by him by selling defective and infested Eucalyptus sapplings to the second respondent and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. The District Consumer Forum, after marking documents Exs.A.1 to A.8 and examining the matter, has allowed the C.C. directing the petitioner to pay the cost of the clonals i.e. Rs.1,24,200/- to the second respondent within two months from the date of order and on its failure to do so, to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of C.C. till realization and the second respondent is entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/ towards costs of litigation. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Forum has passed the order, without adducing any evidence, basing on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the alleged letter of the Assistant Director of Agriculture and therefore, the order of the District Forum is perverse. The learned counsel further contended that the condition imposed by the District Consumer Forum is onerous. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is an appealble order under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. 5. Hence, the writ petition dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks time to file appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 19-06-2009 Stp ` ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}