IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 6751 of 2009 Between: Puli Gangadhar Goud. .. PETITIONER AND The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in entertaining P.P.No.213 of 2006 in C.D.No.211 of 2002 and common order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.92 of 2007, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner established Jagitial Shares and Finance Company in the year 1994 at Jagitial, Karimnagar District. He introduced Fixed Deposit Scheme to make deposits with the said firm. Accordingly, the third respondent deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/-as fixed deposit with the said firm. When the third respondent approached the petitioner’s firm for payment of maturity value of Rs.15,000/-, it failed to pay the same. Hence, the third respondent filed C.D.No.211 of 2002 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal District Forum, Karimnagar and the same was allowed on 10.04.2006, directing the petitioner and two others jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity value till the date of payment along with costs, within a period of one month from the date of that order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.97 of 2007 in P.P.No.213 of 2006, seeking to permit him to pay 1/3rd of the decretal amount towards his part of liability and the said petition was dismissed on 25.05.2007. Another review petition being R.P.No.87 of 2007 against P.P.No.207 of 2006 in C.D.No.205 of 2002 filed by the petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, was also dismissed vide common order dated 11.06.2007. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner relied on the definitions of ‘consumer’ and ‘consumer dispute’ as envisaged under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 respectively, and stated that the complaint filed by the third respondent before the District Consumer Forum is not maintainable as it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. He further stated that the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by this Court while granting interim stay on 01.04.2009 and he is ready and willing to pay the balance decretal amount, if time is granted to him. 4. While issuing notice before admission on 01.04.2009, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/-within three weeks from that date. 5. Having regard to the fact that the condition imposed by this Court has already been complied with by the petitioner and the balance decretal amount is too meager, without going into the merits of the matter, we hereby grant eight weeks time to the petitioner to pay the balance decretal amount from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date:15.10.2009 SJ