IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10421 OF 2004 Between: M/s.Kakatiya Cement, Sugars & Industries Ltd., (Sugar Division) rep. by its Managing Director, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND Jakkampudi Krishna Murthy, .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10421 OF 2004 ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ petition is directed against the orders passed in First Appeal No.277 of 2000 dated 3.3.2004 by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The appeal arose out of an order passed by the District Forum, Khamam in O.P.No.661 of 1994. The petitioner in this writ petition was the opposite party and the respondent has been directed to be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- per acre totalling to Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.1,000/- towards costs. This order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Consumer Commission which in turn dismissed the appeal holding that the order passed by the District Forum based upon a report submitted by an Agricultural Officer has sufficient evidence for arriving at the conclusion and rendering the appellant liable for the payment ordered. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, we have pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is justified in lodging the complaint against the writ petitioner before the District Forum. Accordingly, the writ petitioner has paid up the entire amount of Rs.25,000/- ordered by the District Forum through a Demand Draft drawn on 29.08.2009. It has been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not pressed anything beyond this stage against the orders passed by the District Forum as confirmed by the State Commission. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has made a feeble attempt to impress upon us that the amount ordered by the District Forum having not been paid, for this, the respondent should also be additionally compensated by awarding interest. However, we are not impressed by such a submission for two fold reasons, firstly, the very question as to whether the respondent is entitled to be paid a sum of money of Rs.25,000/- was called in question, secondly, when the District Forum and the State Commission did not consider it appropriate to additionally compensate the respondent by awarding interest, we are not willing to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction to additionally compensate the respondent by awarding interest. 3. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 10-09-2009 Stp