IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 5522 of 2009(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BHARAT SANCHA NIGAM LTD., THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (VIGILANCE AND LEGAL). BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN .T, AGED 49, RESIDING AT ERAPPANKUZHIYIL VEEDU, ELAMPALICKAL, PAYYANALLOOR P.O., PALLICKAL,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DOCTOR'S LANE NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5639/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 5522/2009 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF AUG, 2004 IN OP 180/04 BY THE R1 BEFORE THER 2. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE VERSION DT. 14/08/08 IN OP 180/04 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R2 DT. 30/08/08 IN OP 180/04. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT, WITH PETITION IA 171/08 DT. 26/09/08 IN OP 180/04 BY THE R1 BEFORE THE R2 UNDER SEC. 151 IPC. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION DT. 1/11/08 IN IA 171/08 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 13/10/08 OF THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / tga V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5522 & 5639 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Similar facts are involved in these two writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to W.P.(C) No.5639/09. 2. The petitioner-BSNL is the opposite party in a complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. BSNL had entered appearance and filed its version. 3. The complainant before the Forum was absent on 29.7.2008. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed for default, as evidenced by Ext.P4. An application was filed before the forum as Ext.P5 for restoration of the same and the petitioner has filed objections as Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, final orders have not been passed on Ext.P5, but by an oral order, the complaint was restored to file. Restoration of the complaint was followed by a notice, as evidenced by Ext.P7, to W.P.(C).No.5522 & 5639 of 2009 :: 2 :: the petitioner to appear on 19.9.2008 and hence the writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “(a) call for the records, (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash the entire proceedings in O.P.(CDRF)No.161/04 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, (c) stay the entire proceedings in in O.P.(CDRF) No.161/04 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, (d) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, (e) allow the Writ Petition with costs.” 4. In spite of service of notice from this court, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Since, by Ext.P5 the complaint has been dismissed for default, the Forum can, if at all, proceed with the complaint on merits only if it is restored to file. Ext.P5 application is filed restoration. But, the same has been objected to by the petitioner, inter alia, stating that the Forum has no jurisdiction to restore a complaint dismissed for W.P.(C).No.5522 & 5639 of 2009 :: 3 :: default. A considered order has to be passed by the Forum on Ext.P5 application for restoration, after hearing the petitioner, which is the opposite party before the Forum. The complaint in question can be proceeded with on merits only if it is restored to file pursuant to the order to be passed by the Forum. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to proceed to pass a reasoned order on Ext.P5 application, after considering the objections of the BSNL also. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after notice to the complainant, as also the opposite party. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// W.P.(C).No.5522 & 5639 of 2009 :: 4 ::