IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7416 of 2008 Between: Yatham Venkateswarlu Reddy, S/o. peda Ramana Reddy, R/o. Mogalluru (Village), Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. 3 The District Cnsumer Disputes, Redressal Forum, Nellore, Rep. by its President. 4 Palakuru Rajagopal Reddy, S/o. pedaobulu Reddy, R/o. Mogalluru (Village), Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorar calling for the records relating to the order in F.A.No. 1267/2006, dt. 4-1-2008 on the file of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore in C.D.No. 159/2004 dt. 1-7-2006 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.CKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17434 of 2008 Between: yatham Venkateswarlu Reddy S/o Peda Ramana Reddy R/o Mogalluru (Vil), Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep byits Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad rep by its Registrar 3 The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore rep by its President, 4 Gajjala Venugopala Reddy S/o Ramana Reddy r/o Mogalluru (Vil), Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in F.A. No. 1268/2006 dt 4-1-2008 on the file of A.P. State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad Confirming the order of the District Consumer disputes, Redressal Forum, Nellore in C.C. No. 160/2004, dt 1-7-2006 and quash the same and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.CKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22497 of 2008 Between: Yatham Venkateswarlu Reddy S/o. Peda Ramana AReddy R/o. Mogalluru (Vil) Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes, Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. 3 The District Consumer Disputes, Redressal Forum, Nellore, Rep by its President. 4 Yanamala Venkataramana Reddy S/o. Venkata Narapa Reddy R/o.Mogalluru (Vil) Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order in F.A.No. 1269/2006, dt. 4-1-2008 on the file of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore in C.D.No. 161/2004 dt. 1-7-2006 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.CKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.7416,17434 and 22497 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) Since similar question of law arises for consideration in these writ petitions, they are being heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. The private party respondent-complainant in each of these cases filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nellore (for short “the District Forum”) alleging that he had purchased cotton seeds of BT variety from the petitioner and raised the crop, but the said crop failed as the petitioner supplied spurious and inferior quality of cotton seeds. The complaint therefore was that the seeds which were supplied by the petitioner were defective. During trial, the aforesaid complainant produced Exs.A-1 to A-8 documents and most importantly Ex.A-5, which is a xerox copy of statement of the petitioner himself, wherein supply of seeds by him to each of the complainant is admitted. The complainant also submitted other documents to substantiate that he has not only filed police complaints, but also made other representations to the Agricultural Officers etc. The petitioner also filed three documents Exs.B-1 to B-3, wherein also he admitted that he had supplied the seeds, but his primary contention was that he purchased the seeds from a third party, who is a necessary party for disposal of these consumer complaints. After hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, the District Forum allowed the complaints in part by awarding compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization. The amounts awarded in each of these three cases is different and details thereof are mentioned hereafter. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed three separate appeals, which have been dismissed by the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”). The said orders of the State Commission are impugned in these writ petitions. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the complainant. After hearing for quite sometime and after considering the material on record, ultimately a consensus has emerged, wherein the petitioner submits that he had already deposited the principal amount which was ordered in each of these Consumer Cases and the said amounts are lying to the credit of the State Commission. A memo to that effect is also filed before this court. It is stated that in W.P.No.7416 of 2008 the principal amount of Rs.16,645/- awarded by the District Forum has been deposited. Similarly, in W.P.No.17434 of 2008 the principal amount of Rs.19,645/-, which was awarded, has been deposited. So also in W.P.No.22497 of 2008, an amount of Rs.29,630/-, which was awarded, has also been deposited. In view of the consensus, which emerged at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant agrees to forgo the interest on the principal amount as ordered by the District Forum. In view of the above consensus, we dispose of these writ petitions directing that the complainant in each of these cases would be entitled to withdraw the principal amount, which is said to be lying with the State Commission, and the rest of the claim of the complainants with respect to interest and costs is not pressed by the complainants. As the complainants are not pressing rest of the claim and petitioner has withdrawn contest with respect to principal amounts already deposited as above, nothing survives to be adjudicated in these writ petitions. Recording the above consensus, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated:19-01-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies