IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17559 of 2000 Between: M/s.Kiran Real Estates & Constructions, reptd., by its Managing partner Sri V.Krishna Prasad, S/o.Paddaiah V., D.No.50-40-13, TPT Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And The District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None Counsel for respondents: ---- This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare initiation of proceedings in P.P.No.189 of 2000 in C.D.No.409 of 1999 on the file of the District Forum, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.1 herein, as arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void. The petitioner suffered an order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and registered as C.D. No.409 of 1999 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) was allowed with the direction to the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 14-1-1996 along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- within two months. The petitioner claimed that it filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short “the Commission”) under Section 15 of the Act and the same was assigned FASR No.1519 of 2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the said appeal was not taken up for hearing in view of the resignation of the President of the Commission and retirement of one of its Members, the punishment petition filed by respondent No.2 was entertained by respondent No.1 and notice dated 26-7-2000 was issued. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal pf the proceedings sheet shows that on 20-9-2000 this Court granted interim stay for a period of eight weeks and the said order has not been extended since then. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that in the absence of stay, the P.P. proceedings could have been concluded unless the petitioner was able to get an order of stay before the Commission. At the hearing, no one is present to apprise the Court of the present situation. However, considering the facts of the case as discussed above, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage as the Writ Petition was filed to meet the contingencies of temporary non- functioning of the Commission and with the efflux of nearly eight years since the filing of the present Writ Petition the said reason lost its relevance. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:23-07-2008 MNR