IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13104 of 2009 Between: 1 Navodaya Finance and Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Rayampet, Medak District, Regd. Firm , Rep. by its Director Baja Rama Raju S/o. Baja Kistaiah, 38 yrs R/o. Ramayampet, Medak District. 2 Baja Rama Raju S/o. Baja Kistaiah, R/o. Ramayampet, Medak District. 3 Mettu Mallesam S/o. M. Kistaiah R/o. H.No. 14-83, Upper Basti, Ramayampet, Medak District. 4 Vadla Srilnivas S/o. Jagannatham R/o.H,No. 7-40, Durgammagalli, Ramayampet, Medak District. 5 P. Sekhar @ Chandra Sekhar S/o.Lakshmi Narayana R/o. Ramayampet, Medak District. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the directors of the 1st Petitioner All the petitioners are Representing the 1st petitioner firm as all are partners and they are Proforma Parties ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 National Counsumer Disputes Reddressal Commission New Delhi, Rep. by its Registrar 2 A.P. State Counsumer Disputes Reddressal Commission Anand Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. 3 The District Consumer Forum (Under Consumer Protection Act 1986) Sanga Reddy Medak District. 4 V. Rajesam S/o. Sailu R/o. Dongala Dharmaram Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Medak 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 any writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to order in Revision petition No. 605/2006 on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi dt. 5-5-2009 and the Ordeer in FA.I.A.No. 1311/2000 and F.S. Sr. No. 1561/2000 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, Hyderabad and the Order of the District Consumer Forum, Medak District at Sanga Reddy in CD No. 40/99 and set aside the same by holding that the said orders are illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary unconstitutional violative of Principles of natural justice and consequently allow the writ petition against the above three orders and to remand the matter to District Forum, Medak District at Sanga Reddy for fresh disposal of the CD No. 40/1999 after giving opportunity to petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA FOR R13.07.09,VAK-4 The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 5.5.2009 passed in Revision Petition No. 605 of 2006 on the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the order in FAIA No. 1311 of 2000 and FA(SR) No. 1561 of 2000 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the order of the District Consumer Forum, Medak District at Sanga Reddy in C.D.No. 40 of 1999 and set aside the same as they are illegal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not duly served with notice and the substitute service is not at all service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners inspite of service of notice and inspite of paper publication have not chosen to appear before the District Forum, Sanga Reddy. Therefore, the District Forum by its order dated 31.1.2000 directed the petitioners to release the Tractor in good condition by taking their due amount within two months, otherwise complainant was held entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 7.1.1997 till the date of realization and further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. It is also submitted that on coming to know the same, petitioners approached the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad by filing first appeal and the same was dismissed on the ground of delay at the admission stage observing that even after service of notice petitioners neither appeared nor filed their versions and hence they were set exparte. It is also submitted that at that stage, the 4th respondent filed P.P.No. 28 of 2000 in C.D.No. 40 of 1999 before the District Forum at Sanga Reddy. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition and while issuing notice this court granted interim stay and ultimately CRP was dismissed as not maintainable. It is further stated thereafter the petitioners filed Revision Petition (RP) No. 605 of 2006 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the same was also dismissed on 5.5.2009 confirming the lower court order but reducing the interest from 18% to 12% per annum by granting eight weeks time to pay the amount of Rs. 1,82,000/-with interest at 12% per annum and liberty was also given to the 4th respondent to proceed under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, if there is any deviation in payment and therefore, they pray this court to dismiss the Writ Petition. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. Petitioners cannot be shown any indulgence of equitable jurisdiction inasmuch as they approached the court on many occasions and now they are trying to show that the service of notice by way of paper publication is not at all service under the Act. They have not shown any material to countenance the same. Hence, we are unable to accept this contention. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR , J Dt. 15.07.2009 KA // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies