High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT J9STrcE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA PETITI N i2 12oF 2024 Betvveen: Branch. Manager, Union _B-qn!.gf lndia, Falem Branch, Main Road, Bijinapaily Mandal, Mahabubnagar-50921 5, AND 1 . Union of lndia, Rep. by its Mi1ri Delhi. ...PETITIONER stry of fqw, Sfiastry Bhavan, R.P.Road, New 2 T.S.State Consumer Dasputes RedreqEa! Commission, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. Represented by itS Registtaf.

3. K. Praveen Kumar, S/o Venaiah, Aged H No 3-'17. Palem Village, Bijinapatly [I qbout 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o a{dal, Mahabubnagar Distric!509215. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of thg qenttitutlqn of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filefl tfrerqwith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction mere particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertainlng to the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in R.A. NO. I o! 2O2? [n F.A. No.322l2017 dismissing rhe review application filed by the petitigner io1 p.y., to re-call the dismissal for default order dated 20.12.2022 passe( in the F.A.No.32212017 for non- prosecution of the case by the petitioner cOnfifming th€ order dated 31 .Ot 2O'fi of the District Commissioner, Mahabubnagarj in CC No. 4312014 without exercising jurisdiction vested upon it or without following the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, '1986 or Consumer Protect Act, 2019 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of ttrc petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the dismissal for default order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent n th€ -.A.No.32212017 filed by the petilioner', pending disposal of the Main Writ Pr.'titior Qounsel for the t'etitioner: SRI V.V. RAMANA REPRESENTING FQB SRl, N V SUBBA RA-IU gcunsel for the Fi.espondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIEIS F,gun"el fo; ttre Fiespondent No.3: -- Tle Ceqrt made 'he following: ORDER I t I I ! I I I I f f i f l. i I I t, t! u THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI'IIIAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMAIA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.2512 of 2o24 ORDER: Pe. the Hon'bte Si Juslice Abhnand Kun@r shauili) Aggrieved by the order, dated O5.O9.2O23 passed in Review Application No.6 of 2023 tn F.A.No'322 of 2Ol7 by the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, the present Writ Petition is hled.

2. Heard Sri V.V. Ramala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2'

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar uide C.C.No.43 of 2014, atleging certain dehciencies against the petitioner and the District Consumer Forum was pleased to partly allow 2 the corrLplaint uide order, dated 3l.O7.2Cl',7 zmtl directed the 1ret11-ioner to pay an amount of Rs.5{),li9B l- along with t.h,:: interest @ 18% per annum liorn lJovember, 2013 till the date of realisation to the p'etitioner and to pay the compensation of Rs.2O,OOO/- and irnposed a cost )f I:1:.. 1000/-

4. Aggrieved by the order, dated :il.Oi'.2'017, the petitioner has preferred the appeal to the i''elangana State r.) rnsumer Disputes Redressal C:ornmission, Hyderal.rad, by filing F.A.No.322 of 2017. Florvever, on 2o.l)-.2r'.)'.2'2,learned counsel for the petitiont:r could not appear l:r,:fore the State Commission and as a lesult, the State C,.r:nmission dismissed the appeal Ior d efault. In thost: s,: : of circumstances, the pe ti tion e r has filed Revir:v'' r\cplication No.6 of 2023 in F.A. \c,.3221 of 2017, seekinq r> re-call the order of dismissal lor default. Howr:r,er. the State Commission has dism- ssed the Revie,r,"' ,\rplication vide order, dated 05.O9 2023 with an obselvat-i rn that the State Commission has; eo power to - 3 recall its own orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Meesa Varalakshmi a. Andhta Pradesh Stdte Constmcr Disputes Redtessal Commiission and anothert, wherein, t.lle Division Bench of this Court has held that the Tribunal has quasi-judicial authority and the power to recall its own orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court (supra), the order passed by the State Consumer is liabte to be set aside and let the matter be remitted back to the State Commission to hear the appeal on its merits ald pass appropriate orders in accordance w'ith law. Learned counsel for tJ.e petitioner had further contended that notices have been served on respondent No.3, but in spite of service of notice, ' t996 cJ 1e.ey l:.t I I I I I t i I 4 respcnderrt No.3 has not appeared. 'l'herefore, approprrate orders be passed to that effec:t

6. (-tn :he other hand, learned Governrnr:n I Pleader apperlrirrg, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 had conterrded that in vie,u,' rll the judgment rendered by the Divrsi,rn Bench of thrs (.-lourt in Meesa Varalo,kshmi's czLsr:(srpra), let the rrdr::, dated O5.O9.2A23 passed t,y tiee State Comrnissron in R.A.No.6 of 2023 be sel zLside and the matt(:r br: r:emitted back to the State Commissicn to hear the arppr:rrl on its merits, instead of disreis;sing the appeal for default.

7. 'lhis Court, having considered tl-re sr.rLrmissions made by roth the parties, is of the vieu' that, t:re order, dated C)5.t)9.2023 passed in R.A.No.6 of '20223 is contrar5r to thr, lail, laid down by the Division Benr:h cl'tlris Court in Meesa Varalq.kshmt's case (supra). Tlrr:re.fore, the order d;:r'.ed 05.09.2023 passed in R.A. llo.i> ol 2023 in F.A.No.3,22 of 2OI7 is liable to be set asicte zLnd the matter is' 'emitted back to the State Comrrissiorr to hear 5 R.A.No.6 of 2023 on its merits, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated O5.O9.2O23 passed in R.A.No.6 of 2O23 tn F.A.No.322 of 2OI7 by the Telangana State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, is set aside. No order as to costs. g. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. i, I \ To, ,/TRUE COPY// SD'-K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Ministry of Law, Shastry Bhavan' R P Road' New Delhi' 2. The Registrar, T.S.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission' Khairtabad, HYderabad

3. One CC to SRl. N V SUBBA RAJU Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dv SOLICITOB GEN' OF INDIA Advocate tOPUCI 5 TwoCCstoGPforclvllSUPPLIES,HighCourtfortheStabqfTetangana et Hyderabad. [OUTI

0. Two CD Copies KK9 BS ?,+ HIGH COUIRT DATED:0310412025 ORDER WP.No.2S12 of 2O24

1., o > 'v o : I 4 ) o o \t' I'jr t$'& c * \ i',i" r ALLOWINCi THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT (]OSTS !il' TIt'1'' t l /