HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29457 OF 2010 Between: R. Marimuthu S/o R. Raja Gopalan ………….Petitioner AND Boggarapu Silpha D/o B. Subba Guruvaiah and nine others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order dated 15.4.2010 of the State Commission passed in F.A.I.A.NO. 2892 of 2008 in FA SR No. 5509 of 2008 in C.D.No. 219 of 2003 on the file of the District Forum, Prakasam District, Ongole, the present Writ Petition is filed. First respondent herein is the complainant, who filed C.D.No. 219 of 2003 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-first respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 29.10.1993 under two bonds in India Housing Finance and Development Limited-second respondent herein, in the name of Boggrapu Silpa and the total maturity amount of two bonds is Rs. 2,64,940/. As the second respondent herein failed to repay the said deposit amount after its maturity period, the complainant filed C.D. The District Forum, Prakasam District, at Ongole, allowed the said petition directing the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 therein to pay an amount of Rs. 2,64,940/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of maturity on fixed deposit bonds till the date of realisation and also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner herein field an appeal viz., FASR No. 5509 of 2008 along with FAIA No. 2892 of 2008, before the A.P. State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Hyderabad, seeking to condone the delay of 1510 days in filing the appeal and the same were dismissed observing as under: “The petitioner-company could have placed the orders of the High Court of Mumbai about the pendency of the earlier proceedings in OP 3337 of 1995. It is settled law when the company law is seized of the matter in respect of the subject matter of the case which is earlier to the consumer dispute, the petitioner company should have taken steps to get the orders stayed or raised the point before the District Forum to direct the complainant to approach the liquidator/receiver who has been dealing with the subject matter of the dispute for payment of the amounts due to the depositors. As the OP proceedings in 3337 are far earlier than the consumer dispute which were filed in the year 2003 the petitioner has to seek necessary course for passing necessary orders or necessary recourse before the District consumer Forum. In a decision reported in Alianz Capital and Management Services Limited Vs. B. V. Grover and another 2001 C PR Page 91 (NC) it is held that when the company law has seized the matter with regard to the subject matter of the consumer dispute or the amounts covered by the FDRs the District Forum cannot proceed with the execution except to direct the decree-holder to approach the liquidator or receiver for disbursement of the amounts covered by the FDRs.” It further observed as under “In a decision of the A.P. State Commission in Union of India Vs. Ch. Jogireddy reported in 2000 (1) ALD consumer page 29 it was held that the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal cannot be sought to be condoned on the ground of compliance of procedural requirements and that the departments should choose themselves up for filing appeals in time. On the same legal analogy it can be said that the petitioner/company ought to have taken timely steps in preferring the appeal.” Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when the Company Court have seized of the matter, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Hyderabad ought not to have decided the issue. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, reads as under: “3. Act not in derogation of any other law: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” Be that as it may, under the scheme of the Act, against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, an appeal is provided to the National Consumer Forum. The contention of the petitioner that even though appeal is provided to the National Consumer Forum, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India still remains cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner to approach the National Consumer Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR , J DATE: 29.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.