IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3435 of 2008 Between: 1 V.V. Durga Prasad, S/o. V. Kotaiah, R/o. Flat No. 501/B, 73, Millenium Royale, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. New Millenium Constructions, Rep by V.V. Durga Prasad, S/o. Kotaiah, R/o. Millenium Royale, Flat No. 501/B, 73, H.No. 7-1-63, Dharam Karam Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 M.V. Krishna Prasad, S/o. M. Durga Prasad, R/o. Flat No. 103, R.R. Residency, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rep by its Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 K. Jagadishwar Reddy, S/o. K.V. Narsimha Reddy, R/o. 18/C (990), MLA Colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 D. Vidhya Sagar, S/o. D. Seshagiri Rao, R/o. Plot No. 893, Road No. 46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4 D. Charumati, S/o. D. Seshagiri Rao, R/o. Plot No. 893, Road No. 46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Kavita, W/o. Sudhir Nathan, R/o. Plot No. 893, Road No. 46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 6 Smt. P. Anitha, W/o. Ravindra Prasad, R/o. Plot No. 893, Road No. 46, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to FA IA No. 80/2008 in FA No. 40/2008 dt. 25-1-2008 on the file of the 1st Respondent i.e. AP State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional to the extent of directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of decretal amount, besides the statutory deposit and further permitting the 2nd respondent herein to withdraw the said amount so deposited by the petitioners, without furnishing any security. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. P. Shiv Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP, CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5: Mr. P. Radhiv Reddy Order: (Per R. Subhash Reddy, J) This writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 25-01-2008, passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission) in FA IA No.80/2008 in FA No.40 of 2008. 2. The petitioners herein are opposite parties 5, 6 and 7 in the consumer case in C.C.Nos.716 of 2005, before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (for short ‘the District Forum’). The second respondent/complainant filed the above C.C. before the District Forum seeking directions to the petitioners/opposite parties to register the sale deed in respect of his flat or alternatively to direct them to refund the amounts paid by him with interest from the date of the agreement till the date of realization, along with costs. 3. It is the claim of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum that the petitioners/opposite parties, having entered into agreement, for sale of flat and having received the full consideration, have not executed sale deed in his favour and to cause loss to him, sold the said flat to a third party. The said claim was contested by the petitioners herein. However, by common order dated 31-10-2007, the District Forum directed the petitioners/opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant, with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the agreement till the date of realization and to pay litigation charges of Rs.2000. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/opposite parties preferred an appeal, namely, FA No.40 of 2008 before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the State Commission) and pending disposal of the appeal, sought interim orders by way of an I.A. As interim measure, the State Commission, by the impugned order, granted interim stay of execution of the order passed by the District Forum, subject to the condition of the petitioners/opposite parties depositing half of the decretal amount, besides the statutory deposit, before the District Forum, within four weeks therefrom. 5. Now, it is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the State Commission, and further orders passed by this court on 18-02-2008, the said amounts have been deposited by the petitioners/opposite parties. 6. In these writ petitions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, amounts have been deposited before the Forum. However, it is pleaded that respondent/complainant may not be allowed to withdraw the same pending disposal of the appeal before the State Commission. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that as much as the respondent/complainant has already succeeded before the District Forum and as he had paid the amount towards purchase money to purchase the flats, if he is not allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners/opposite parties, he will be put to hardship. 8. It is to be noticed that that the petitioners/opposite parties have filed appeal before the State Commission disputing the very jurisdiction of the District Forum, which had issued directions for payment of monies. It is the case of the petitioners/opposite parties before the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the money, which is sought to be recovered, is on account of a commercial transaction and hence the same is beyond the purview of the provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 9. In view of the pendency of the appeal, it is not desirable to record any definite finding on merits. In view of the grounds raised in the appeal, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order of the State Commission to the extent of permitting the respondents/complainant to withdraw the amount, which is ordered to be deposited, without furnishing any security. The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amounts which are said to be deposited by the petitioners/opposite parties, in terms of the order passed by the State Commission and the order dated 18-02-2008 passed by this court, by furnishing security, to the satisfaction of the Registry of the State Commission. 10. The writ is disposed of with the aforesaid modifications and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 30, 2008 MRR