IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.V.M.P.No.4327 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION No.11683 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No.11683 of 2010 Between: M/s.Lakshmi Mega Township and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND District Consumer Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.V.M.P.No.4327 of 2010 in WRIT PETITION No.11683 of 2010 and WRIT PETITION No.11683 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) In this writ petition, the petitioners seek to issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the 1st respondent i.e. the District Consumer Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad, from exercising the jurisdiction or power of a Judicial First Class Magistrate under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) which is not conferred on it till date in the proceedings pending before it in E.A.No.4 of 2010 in C.C.No.20 of 2009. 2. The circumstances which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows. The petitioners are engaged in the business of construction and sale of duplex houses. It is stated that the 3rd respondent filed a consumer dispute against them in C.C.No.20 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent claiming refund of Rs.7 lakhs paid by him towards token advance for sale of two duplex houses along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. It is stated that the total cost of each duplex house is Rs.23 lakhs and that the 3rd respondent has paid Rs.3 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs respectively towards advance of each duplex house and did not pay the balance amount though they were ready to register the sale deed in his favour. 3. It should be noted that the 1st respondent by its order dated 28.10.2009 partly allowed C.C.No.20 of 2009 making the petitioners herein jointly and severally liable for refund of Rs.7 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum from 30.12.2007 till the date of realization and also directed them to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation along with Rs.2,000/- towards costs. It is stated that after passing the said order, the 3rd respondent filed E.A.No.4 of 2010 under Section 27 of the Act in the said C.C.No.20 of 2009 before the 1st respondent seeking to punish them for non- compliance of the order dated 28.10.2009. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the action of the 1st respondent in taking cognizance and issuing summons to them in E.A.No.4 of 2010 filed by the 3rd respondent in C.C.No.20 of 2009 under Section 27 of the Act even though neither the High Court nor the State Government has conferred the jurisdiction or power of a Judicial First Class Magistrate on it as provided under Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal and without jurisdiction. Their contention is that the 1st respondent ought to have returned the said E.A. itself as not maintainable. 5. While admitting this writ petition, this Court by order dated 19.05.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.14783 of 2010 granted interim stay of further proceedings in the E.A. stated above subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the amount awarded by the 1st respondent within four weeks from that date. Aggrieved by the said orders in WPMP, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.4327 of 2010 in WPMP No.14783 of 2010 seeking to vacate the said interim stay order. 6. It should be noted here that the petitioners have filed before this Court a memo dated 16.06.2010 stating that in compliance of the above interim order they have deposited Rs.3,50,000/- being 50% of the amount awarded by the 1st respondent. 7. Today Smt. Aruna Yalagiri, the learned counsel appearing for the vacate petitioners, relied upon a decision of this Court given in W.P.No.9450 of 2010 (Victory Projects and another vs. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others) and stated that this matter is covered by the said decision and therefore the writ petition has to be dismissed. We have gone through this decision. In the said decision it has been held by this Court that the language of Section 27(2) would show that the said Section itself has conferred power of the Judicial First Class Magistrate on the said Forum. In view of this it follows that the contention of the petitioners in this writ petition which is already mentioned supra cannot be upheld. 8. It should also be noted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Consumer Forum they have also a right of appeal under Section 27(A) of the Act before the State Consumer Forum. 9. Accordingly, the vacate stay petition is allowed and this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 10. It is seen that the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in the first respondent- District Forum pursuant to the interim order of stay granted by this Court. That amount shall be held by the first respondent subject to the orders of the appellate authority in case the petitioners file an appeal and in the alternative the first respondent itself can dispose of any claim to the said amount by either party. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 18th January 2011 CVRK