Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed without any
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 s. 27
Judgment
Operative part
rep. by its Managing Partner Smt. P. Nirmala Devi, W/o P.S.R. Patrudu, R/o 50-13-27/52, II Floor, Plot No. 52, Balaji Apartments, Sai Balaji Housing Complex, Seethamapeta, Visakhapatnam. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Union of India, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Law), New Delhi. 2 Nandula R.S.S.S.V.Kumar, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Plot No.10, Gautam Nagar, Vapagunta, Vizag. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Certiorari by declaring the power of penalties U/s 27 of the Consumer protection Act (Act 68/86) without contemplating the procedural Rules thereunder, is violative of Art 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently declare the action of the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam in issuing warrant of arrest in P.P.No. 249/2000 in C.D. 87/2000 to the Managing partner of petitioner construction who is woman, without following the procedure known to law is highly arbitrary, unjust and is opposed to the principles of natural Justice and quash the same and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. For the Petitioner: SMT. D.PRASANNA KUMARI, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1: Mr. A. Rajashekar Reddy, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. For Respondent No. 2: MR.K.V.SUBRAMANYA NARASU, Advocate. The Court made the following Order: (per Sri B. Sudershan Reddy, J) The subject matter that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in C.V. Ratnam v. Union of India and others. Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs.
01..11..2004 To (B. Sudershan Reddy, J) (K.C. Bhanu, J) //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary (Law), Union of India, New Delhi. 2 The President, District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam. 3 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Following the said Judgment, this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed without any
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s. 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 01 Nov 2004. The bench was B SUDERSHAN REDDY, K C BHANU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.