THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16776 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to set aside the orders in F.A.No.137/2001, dated 27.03.2001, on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, and C.D.No.137 of 2000, dated 6.2.2001, on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has already been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in C.V. Ratnam v. Union of India, and having considered all the relevant aspects, the Full Bench has upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has also been held by the Full Bench that the penal provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act, are not discriminatory, nor violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Ratnam’s case, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly, following the decision in Ratnam’s case (1 supra), the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ (G. ROHINI, J.) 8th December, 2005. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16776 OF 2001 8th December, 2005. Between: L. Gopal Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The Union of India, represented By its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Forums, Ministry of Civil Supplies, Govt. of India, New Delhi and four others. .. Respondents.