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.9228 of 2003 Between: L.Rami Reddy. … Petitioner And The District Forum (under Consumer Protection act, 1986). And four others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.9228 of 2003 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 C.D.No.45 of 2001 and P.P.No.50 of 2002 in C.D.No.45 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986), Medak District, Sangareddy– 1st respondent herein, including non bailable warrant issued on 25.02.2003 by 1st respondent as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and to quash the same. Brief facts of the case are that 2nd respondent who joined in the chit run by V.V.Chit Funds Limited of 3rd and 5th respondents, filed C.D.No.45 of 2001 complaining that he paid 22 monthly instalments upto October, 2000 regularly without any default and thereafter the opposite parties failed to conduct the business and closed the same. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay the chit amount of Rs.one lakh with interest at 24% per annum and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint, recording the finding that in spite of service of notice on the opposite parties-3rd and 5th respondent and the petitioner herein, they have not chosen to put up appearance and thereby remained ex parte and accordingly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.76,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 15.10.2000 till the date of realisation. For due execution of the same, P.P.No.50 of 2002 was filed in which notice was ordered and the decree holder filed a paper publication about the summons by way of substitute service to opposite parties. Since they failed to appear, non- bailable warrant was issued by the impugned order. At that stage, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the chit fund company filed C.P.No.131 of 2000 in which a provisional liquidator was appointed on 23.04.2000 and winding up orders were passed on 06.02.2002. Since in view of the bar contained under Section 446 of the Company (Court) Act, the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and pass orders, when the company petition for winding up is pending. Notices were not served personally to the petitioner in P.P.No.50 of 2002 and also in C.D.No.45 of 2001 and the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without serving the notice to the petitioner the impugned orders are passed in C.D.No.45 of 2001 and also in P.P.No.50 of 2002, and hence they are liable to be set aside. We do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the District Forum recorded a finding that in spite of service of notice on opposite parties, they have not chosen to put up any appearance. It is now fairly well settled that since an appeal lies against the orders of the District Forum before the State Commission and also an appeal against the orders passed by the State Commission before the National Commission, under Section 27-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but without availing the same, it is premature to entertain this writ petition only on issuing the non-bailable warrant. Since this Court stayed the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner, the same shall be continued until the District Forum decides the maintainability of the P.P., in view of the winding up orders passed in C.P.No.131 of 2000, whether the decree holder has to approach the official liquidator for recovery of the amount, are the matters to be decided by the Forum on the factual aspect. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition directing that pursuant to the non-bailable warrant the petitioner shall not be arrested and he shall appear before the District Forum and put forth all his claims. The District Forum shall pass appropriate orders whether any P.P. order can be passed against the petitioner or not and it is needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the adverse order, if any, passed in the P.P., he can avail the appellate remedy before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) _________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 05.11.2009. Lmv