IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16679 of 2006 Between: Dama Ajay Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nellore, rep. by its Chairman & 4 others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 16679 OF 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Petitioner obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show-cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued under Article 226 of Constitution of India after calling for the records relating to the order passed in I.A.No.141 of 2005 in C.C.No.127 of 2005, dated 15.4.2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore-1st respondent herein and quash the same. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore in C.C.No.127 of 2005 complaining defects and incomplete works in the apartment constructed and sold by the 5th respondent and seeking return of Rs.1,52,500/- with interest for not providing the amenities; Rs.2 lakhs with interest towards mental agony etc. In the said O.A., the 5th respondent herein filed I.A.No.141 of 2005 contending that he sold the apartment in the first floor of a building constructed by him to the writ petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.6.75 lakhs out of which, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs leaving the balance of Rs.25,000/-. As per clause 6 of the agreement, the 5th respondent has to put up tiled flooring in the apartment of the petitioner, but at the instance of the petitioner, he laid Rajasthan Marble flooring for which, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the additional provision and thus, the petitioner has to pay the total amount of Rs.65,000/- including the balance of Rs.25,000/-. Though the petitioner occupied the apartment on 25.5.2005, he laid the complaint to evade the amount of Rs.65,000/- and therefore, the 5th respondent prayed the Forum to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.65,000/- payable to him. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by the impugned order while holding that the aspect whether the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to provide the marble flooring instead of providing tiled flooring etc. can be decided only in the main Complaint Case after full-fledged enquiry, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.65,000/-. This Court by order, dated 11.8.2006 stayed the impugned order. Now, both the counsel represented that since the petitioner has not complied with the direction of the Forum in view of the interim stay passed by this Court, suffice if a direction is issued to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore to decide the main C.C.No.127 of 2005 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it while disposing of the impugned I.A. within a time frame and till such time, the impugned order passed by the Forum shall not be given effect. In view of the representation made by the counsel, the interim stay granted by this Court staying the impugned order shall remain in force till the disposal of C.C.No.127 of 2005 and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore is directed to dispose of the C.C.No.127 of 2005 uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it in the impugned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due opportunity to both the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) NOVEMBER 10, 2009 TSR