IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 3948 of 2009 BETWEEN: Smt.K.Kamala Kumari W/o. Surya Chandra Rao The Eluru Co-operative Building Society Ltd., H.No.84,Housing Board Colony, Vatluru, Pedapadu mandal, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Ms.M.Rajani Devi W/o. M.S.Narayana, R/o.H.No.4, R.M.S.Colony, 2nd Line, R.R. Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Eluru Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., WG-5, Rep.by its Liquidator, C/o. Office of the Divisional Cooperative Officer Pattebada, Eluru-2. ...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 writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records resulting in the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Hon`ble District Forum, West Godavari District Eluru, in C.D.No.225 of 2004 as against the petitioner herein as void abinitio and consequently set aside all the subsequent orders including the order of detention of petitioner herein passed in PP.No.48/2005 in CD.No.225/04 and recall the warrant of arrest issued by the District Consumer Forum as against the petitioner herein and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.NALIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the District Forum, West Godavari District, in C.D.No.225 of 2004 dated 21.03.2005 and quash the same and consequently to set aside the detention order passed in P.P.No.48 of 2005 in C.D.No.225 of 2004 dated 31.08.2005. 2. The undisputed facts are that the complaint of the first respondent herein before the District Forum in C.D.No.225 of 2004 for payment of excess amount collected from her along with interest was allowed by order dated 21.03.2005 directing the second respondent bank as well as the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.31,313/- along with interest at 8% per annum from 21.12.2001 till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony and to pay further costs of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the said order but the second respondent bank filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, being F.A.No.810 of 2005, which was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2005 to which the petitioner herein is also a party. Thereafter, the complainant/first respondent filed P.P.No.48 of 2005 in C.D.No.225 of 2004 before the District Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) to punish the petitioner and the second respondent bank for not complying with the order of the District Forum and the said petition was allowed by order dated 31.08.2005 convicting the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for non-compliance of the order. Insofar as the second respondent bank is concerned, liberty was given to the complainant to take appropriate proceedings to liquidate the affairs of the second respondent. Against the said order dated 31.08.2005, the petitioner filed an appeal in F.A.No.1134 of 2005 on the file of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.09.2008. 3. This Writ of Certiorari has been filed without impleading the District Forum as well as the State Commission, which passed the initial order, the order of punishment and the appellate order respectively. In fact, the order of the District Forum has become final, as the appeal filed by the second respondent to which the petitioner is also a party, was dismissed. The said appellate order has not been questioned. As the order of the District Forum has been passed four years ago and the consequential punishment order is passed in 2005, we do not see any merits in the writ petition. We are also of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable without impleading the District Forum as well as the State Commission, more so without questioning the appellate order passed confirming the order of the District Forum. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 27, 2009 DSK