IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.20735 of 2002 Between: P.Srinivasa Rao. … Petitioner And The District Consumer Forum, Medak District at Sanga Reddy and three others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.20735 of 2002 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The petitioner invoked the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.R.No.812 of 2002 in P.P.No.11 of 2002 in C.D.No.21 of 2001 dated 08.10.2002 on the file of the District Forum (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986), Medak District, Sangareddy – 1st respondent herein and to quash the same. Brief facts of the case are that on a consumer dispute raised by the 2nd respondent in connection with the chit transaction with the opposite parties in C.D.No.21 of 2001, the District Forum by its order dated 27.08.2001 allowed the C.D. directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-with interest at 18% per annum from June, 2000 till the date of payment and also Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Since the said amount has not been paid, for due execution of the same he filed P.P.No.11 of 2001, in which the District Forum issued non-bailable warrants against the Judgment Debtors. In execution of the non-bailable warrants, the petitioner, who is the branch Manager of 3rd respondent-Chit Fund Company, was produced before the District Forum and on such production he filed a petition to enlarge him on bail, but however District Forum rejected the same and thereby he was remanded to jail. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the State Commission, in which notice was ordered and since he was not released on bail, he filed the present writ petition questioning the orders of the District Forum. This Court by order, dated 17.10.2002 suspended the impugned order, in effect of which the petitioner is released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state the result of the revision filed by the petitioner. As per the report submitted by the District Consumer Forum, Medak, dated 21.10.2009 the entire record was called for by this Court and are lying in this Court in view of pendency of the writ petition. It is well settled that when a statutory appeal or revision is pending before a Statutory Authority, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the very same relief cannot be entertained. Since the petitioner already availed the remedy of revision, unless the revision is decided against him, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. In view of the same, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pursue the revisional remedy before the State Commission. Pending the said revision, the interim suspension of the impugned order granted by this court shall remain in force. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to return the records to the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sangareddy forthwith and report compliance to this Court by 09.11.2009. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) ___________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 05.11.2009. Lmv