High Court · 2025

4. Major SVS Rdju (Retd), s/o late Sri S V Narasimha Raju a occupation. Retired Defence Employee r/o Sagi Sadan, H Nagar Near Uppal Bus Depot, Hyderabad 500 039. ged about 65 years, No 7-55, Shankar .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order by declaring the order of Respondents No 3 in dismissing the RP No 19212022 in lA No 22812022 in CC No 26212022 dt.31-01 -2023 on the file of Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana, i.e., Respondent No 3 preferred by the Petitioner, is null void as i'egal, atbitrury, unconstitutionar, without having Jurisdiction, and violative of rights of petitioner company and consequenry quash the cc No 262122 0n the file of Hon'bre District consumer Disputes Redressar commission-r, Hyderabad, i.e., Respondent No land. l.A.NO:2 OF 2024 . Petition under section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firecr in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay alr further proceedings in cc No 262t2022 0n the fire of Hon,bre District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission _ l, Hyderabad, i.e., Respondent No.2, pending disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI B.RAVEENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Gp FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI M.CHAKRAPANI The Court made the following ORDER 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA W.P.No. 0 0F 2024 ORDER: (l'er H0 'bk .li .Jutiu ,.4bhitraul kmar -\tltayili) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

31.0t.2023 passed in RP.No.192 of 2022 in I.A.No.22B of 2022 n CCNo.262 of 201t by the State C-onsumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (for short 'the State Commission), Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Bikki Raveendra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the pedtioner, leamed Govemment for Gvil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Chakrapani, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4,h respondenr has purchased plots from the petitioner. Earlier, the 4m respondent has filed CC.No.l47 ol 2OO9 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad (for shon .District Forum), contending that the petitioner is not handing over the registered 2 sale deeds and the said CC was allowed on 06.07 .2009 directing the \ petitioner to hand over the sale deeds. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has handed over the registered sale deeds to the 4th respondent. 'flrereafter, the 4'h respondent has once again filed another case before the District C-onsumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short 'the District Forum) i.e., CC.No.59 of 20Lt for demarcation of the plots and the same was partly allowe d uide order dated 24.02.2c1.2, the petitioner to demarcate the plots as per the registered sale deeds and put marking stones and pay compensation of Rs.10,00O/- and also costs of Rs.2,000/- to the 4th respondent. 'fhereafter, the 4'h respondent has once again filed another complaint against the petitioner uide CCNo-262 of 2022 contending that the Gram Panchayat is not granting permission. fUo.,ih he has filed the said CC against the petitioner and Gram P^n hoyrt, during the pendency of the said complaint, he has withdrawn the complaint against the Gram Panchayat. The Gram panchayat is the competent authoriry ro grant building permission / 3 but not the petitioner. The complaint made against the petitioner itself is not maintainable. Hence, the petitioner has filed i.A.No.156 of ZOZI in CCNo.262 of 2022 wherein the petitioner has raised an issue about the maintainability of the complaint. The District Forum has dismissed the said IA uide order dated 20.07.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has carried the matter to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Cpmmission of Telangana, Hlderabad (for shon 'the State Commission), by filing RP.No.192 of 2022. The State Commission has dismissed the revision uide order dated 31.01.2023. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner had contended that the complaint filed bythe 4,h respondent against the petitioner: is nor at all maintainable and there is no deficiency of service. If the Gram Panchayat is not granting building permission, then rhe 4m respondent must proceed against the Gram PanchasTat, but the 4,1, respondent cannot have any grievance against the petitioner. 4 Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the complaint itself i.e., CCNo.262 of 2022 and also the order dated 3t.01.2023 passed in RP.No.192 of 2022 by the State Commission and allowthe writ petition.

5. Leamed counsel appearing for the 4'h respondent had contended that the 4.h respondent has ,ghtly filed the complaint against the petitioner as the petitioner is influencing the Gram Panchayat not to grant building permission to the 4'h respondent' kamed counsel had funher contended that the issue as to whether a complaint under the consumer Protection Act is maintainable or not can be decided before the District Forum at the time of hearing the main C.CNo.262 of ZOzZ. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly rejected the IA preferred by the petitioner in respect of maintainabiliry of the complaint and the state c-ommission has also rightly rejected the revision. Let the District Forum hear about the maintainabilityof ccNo.262 of 2022 and it is al*ays open for the Disirict Forum to consider and pass appropriate orders. i / 5 6 Leamed counsel appearing for the 4'h respondent had contended that if Gram Panchalat is not impleaded as a pafty n the complaint filed by the 4'h respondent, the District Forum'can alwap examine the case about the non-joinder of necessary Parties, and let the District Forum consider and pass appropriate orders. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be I I dismissed. 7 Flaving considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this C-ourt is of the view that the District Forum has rightly reiected I.ANo.228 of 2022 and State C-ommission was also justified in rejecting Revision Petition No.192 l of 2022. In.respect of maintainabiliry of C.C.No.262 of 2022 against the petitioner is concemed, the District Forum shall examine the case and take into account the objections raised bythe petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 6

8. Accorclingly, the \7rit Petition is disposed of directing the \ District Forum to dispose of CCNo.262 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity to both the panies' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed' SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// }.' To

1. The Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Dept Secreta nat State of Telangana at ECTION OFFICER Hyderabad.

2. The President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- l, Hyderabad 9th Floor, Chandra Vihar Complex Hyderabad.

3. The President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana, Eruvaka Building Khairatabad Hyderabad 500 004.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI B.RAVEENDRA BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI NI.CHAKRAPANI, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA/BSK ,z\ e- N#zl -/) HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 310312025 ORDER WP.No.18900 of 2024 F' e STAre 1tr e J o o 16 APfl 2[m a I OE 'rP I DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.