IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER 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.23498 of 2008 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office XI, H.No.16-10-27/105, II Floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rep. by its Registrar, Eruvaka Building, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Consumer Forum - I Rep. by its President 9th Floor, Chandra Vihar Complex, Opp: Exhibition Grounds, Nampalli, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. P. Radha Devi W/o. P. Satya Narayana R/o. H.No.1-8-702/33/20A, Opp: Kshatriya Towers, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, 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 may be pleased to issue a suitable writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to F.A.38/2004 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and set aside the order in F.A.38/2004 dt.29-12-2006 by declaring it as arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 29-11-2006 passed in F.A.No.38 of 2004, against C.D.325 of 2002, this petition has been filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that no notice was ever received by the petitioner from the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Respondent No.1, when the order dated 10-11-2003, passed by the District Consumer Forum- I, Hyderabad, was challenged before the Commission. An averment has been made on oath to the effect that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner before the aforesaid appeal had been heard by the Commission. Looking to the said fact, without going into the merits of the matter, we reject the petition so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Commission with a suitable application as no opportunity of being heard had been afforded to the petitioner by the Commission. The petitioner shall approach the Commission as soon as possible and we are sure that the Commission shall examine the matter. The petition, therefore, stands disposed of as rejected. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. November 20, 2008 MRR