IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27113 of 2007 Between: The Oriental Insurance company Ltd., rep.by its Divisional manager, Kurnool ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad, Hyderabad rep.by its Registrar 2 The District Consumer Forum Prakasam at Ongole 3 M.Jareena Bee W/o.Momin Abbakkar Siddiq H.No.25/35, Kothapet street, Atmakur, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari in calling the records FA.No.1057 of 2007 on thefile of the 1st respondent i.e. AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 14.5.2007 passed in CC.No.11 of 2007 by the 2nd respondent i.e. District consumer Forum, Kurnool and directing the petitioner insurance company liable to pay the policy amount without following the settled principles is bad in law illegal, consequently to quash the same alternatively to swet aside the order dated 21.9.2007 in FA.No. 1057 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent i.e. AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, and remand for fresh disposal of the said appeal by the 1st respondent and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARI BABU MANNE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) As an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, we do not entertain this writ petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-Insurance Company has submitted that the amount, which has been deposited, might be paid to the Respondent No.3 and in that case, it would be difficult for the petitioner -Company to recover the same from the 3rd respondent. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, it is directed that the amount deposited with Respondent No.2 shall not be disbursed up to 25.3.2008. Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J DATE: 22-2-2008 Note: CC in two days. Bo cvm