IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13632 of 2009 Between: The Associate Dean, Agricultural College, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Aswaraopet, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, rep. by Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairtabad, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh. 2 The District Consumer Forum, Khammam. 3 Pasumarthy Ramachender Rao S/o. Late Veeraiah R/o. Dammapeta Village & Mandal, Khammam 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, order or directing more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to restore the I.A.No.2470/07 in F.A.S.R.5087/07 dated 03.03.2009 by setting aside the order dated 3.3.2009 in I.A.No.2470/07 in F.A.S.R.5087/07 and the consequential order dated 27.4.2009 in I.A.No.815/09 as arbitrary and illegal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:K.SURESH REDDY (SC FOR ANGRAU) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent- A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, to restore I.A.No. 2470 of 2007 filed in F.A.(SR) No. 5087 of 2007 by setting aside the order dated 3.3.2009. The petitioner approached the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission by filing I.A.No. 247 of 2007 in F.A.(SR) No. 5087 of 2007 challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.18 of 2000. Since the petitioner failed to follow-up the matter, the said I.A. 815 of 2009 was dismissed for non-prosecution, which reads as follows. “None appears. This is an application filed to restore the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Since this commission has no power to set aside its own order, this application is dismissed as mis-conceived.” The present writ petition is filed alleging that the first respondent - A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission has no power or jurisdiction to restore the appeal, which was dismissed by it for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. R. Srinivasan[1] while dealing with the provisions of the A.P. Consumers Protection Act, 1986, and after following the judgment of the Full Bench in Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey[2] held that in the absence of the complainant, the Court will be well within the jurisdiction to dismiss the application for non-prosecution, so also, it would have inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for non- appearance of the complainant. In the above circumstances, when once the Court has dismissed the matter for non-prosecution, the very same Court has got power to restore the same. In view of the same, the writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground that the State Commission has no jurisdiction. The petitioner, therefore, can approach the State Commission with an appropriate application within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR, J 9th July, 2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 A.P.State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, rep. by Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairtabad, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh. 2 The District Consumer Forum, Khammam. 3. Two CC to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad OUT 4. 2 CD copies [1] (2000) 3 SCC 242 [2] ILR (1883) 5 All 163