M/S. VEGE Realtors and Builders v. The HonourableTelangana State Consumer

Sri tvlarneedi Sreenivas Rao, S/o Sri Venkanna Dora aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. lC-'13'l , Erramanzil, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Sri Sarioalli Vivekananda Kumar Raiu, S/o Late Sri S. Rajaratnam, aged about 51 years, R/o Flat No 402, H No.1-8-566 to 573, EGL Enclave, RTC X- Roads, Azarhabad, Hyderabad Sri Dasari Sreenadha Rao, S/o Late Sri D Rosaiah aged about 60 years, Occ. Retd. Service, R/o Flat No. 402, H.No.1-8-566 to 573, EGL Enclave, RTC X-Roads, Azamabad, Hyderabad-500 020. Sri S. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Sri. Venku Reddy. R/o Flat No.407, EGL Enclave. RTC X-Roads, Azamabad, Hyderabad-500 020. ...RESPONDENTS 2 3 4 5 6 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of 'lndia praying that an the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of it/andamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in hearing the Appeal No FAt841t2O24 presented by the Petitioner, on the delay in filing the appeal before it, and filing the recall petition and replies by the 3rd Respondent herein on the ground of delay, contrary to the orders dated 0210912024 passed in WP No. 3337 312023 on the 'ile of this Honourable consequently direct he 2nd Respondent to Petitioner herein on n terits Court as hear the arbitrary and illegal, and appeal presented by the lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srrpport of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F A184112024 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petttion Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. ASHOK ANAND KUMAR REP. FOR SRl. N GANGADHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.VASUDEVAN REPRESENTING FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the ResFrondent Nos.3 to 6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAYILI HON'BLE SMT JUSTICflTIRUMAI-A DEVI EADA v/.P. ORbBR: (Per Hon'ble Si Justie Abbina Ktnar Shaili) This writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... ... . to issue a writ, order or direction more panicularly in thenatureofwritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionofthe2"d respondent in hearing the Appeal No'F ANo'841 of 2024 presented by the pedtioner on the delay in filing the appeal before it and filing the recall petition and repties by the 3'd respondent herein on the ground of delay, contrary to the or<lers dated O2'a9 '2024 passed in \fl.P.No.31373 of 2023 onthe file of this Hon'ble Coun as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 2'd respondent to hear the appeal presented by the petitioner herein on merits and pass such other suitable or&r or orders as this C'oun may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case'" Fleard Sri N.Ashok Anand Kumar, Ieamed Senior counsel 2. representing Sri N.Gang adhar',leamed counsel aPPearing for the petitioner, Iearned Government Pleader for Gvil Supplies appearing for respondent No'1, Sri A'S'Vasudevan' Ieamed counsel representing learned Depury Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2. ------'L=- I 2

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3d respondenr has filed a complaint viz., CCNo .t7 of 2016 befon: the 1" respondent- State Consum:r Disputes Redressal Clmmission (for shorr ,the State Commi;sion), Hyderabad, against th,: peritioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6, complaining deficiency of servlce m pursuance of an agreement entered into betwe:n them. The State Commission rllowed the said complaint uide order dated rt.t0.2023. Aggrieved by the said order pzssed by the State Commission, ttre petitioner has approached this Coun by filing \X/.P.No.33233 o1' 2023. This C-.oun uide order darcd OZ.O9.2OZ+ disposed of the writ peririon by observing that the petitioner should approach the National commission as.rhe Naticnal commission is best suited to decide all the factual and legal que stions and there is right of appeal provided to the State Commir;sion orders. This court has furth.rr observed that it is agreed between the parties that if the petirione r prefers an appeal within 15 days before the National c-omrrrission, the limitation will nor br: a hurdle for the I 3 petitioner and ln that event, the National Commission was requested to decide the appeal on merits and observed that the appealshall not be thrown overboard on the ground of limitation.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that in pursuance of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.33773 of 2023,the petitioner has filed first appeal viz., F.ANo.841 of 2024 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short 'the National Commission) and when the cxe was listed on 19.02.2025, counsel for the Petrtroner brought to the notice of the National Commission that the 2d appellant therein has expired and he needs rwo weeks' time to amend the cause title and accordingly, the National Commission has granted dme. kamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the National C-ommission is adjudicating the case in respect of delay in filing the appeal, vzhen the panies have consenred befor-e the Drvision Bench of this court that the appeai can be heard c n metits, the National Commission ought not to have adjudicated the case on delay, since the respondents. have agreed to give rLp their right to oppose appeal on delay. Therefore, appropriate orden be passed in the writ petiricn by directing the National ComrrLission to decide the Appeal on merits in view of the observations mrde by the Division Bench in th,: order referred to supra after givirLg opponuniryto all the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respc'ndent No'2 had contended that he has no objection for condonation of delay in preferring the f rst appeal before the National crmmission and the National Com,rnission can hear the case on merirs after giving opportuniry to I',oth the Panies. Flaving considered the submissions made by the leamed

6. counsel on either side, this Court is of the riew that the lff/rit petition can be disposed of directing the National commission to 5 decide the F.ANo.84L of 2024 on its merits without going into the issue of delay as admittedly, the parties have agreed rc adjudicate the case on merits without going into the 'aspect of condonation of deIay.

7. Accordingly, the'Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, iI any,shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER mer, Disputes The Reqistrar, HonourableTelangana State Con Red resia lComm ission, HYderabad The Registrar Honouable National, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision, New Delhi. One CC to SRI N GANGADHAR Advocate IOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES ,High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] one cc to sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] Two CD Copies \ To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 KKS BS qi HIGH COURT DATED:20103t2025 ;tL S fzi 21 APR 20ffi i, ,l /.... . ./' )' li () ll!) N ..: -::.-.-a=:; ORDER WP.No.8520 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS oq'*tu