The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMA,R SHAVILI AND ,IION'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.34O39 OF 2024 ORDER _l (Per I tort'blc Si Juslice Abhttlettd Kunror Slttuili) WtLen the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing 1br the petitioner had informed the Court that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squ lrely covered by the orde:, dated O5.O9.2O24, passed by the Drvision Bench of this Cou.-t in W.P.No.14027 of 2024 and the s:dd Writ Petition was allowed by setting aside the order, ,dated Oa.O4.2O24 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Dislrutes Redressal Commission, l{vderabad (for short, 'the Statt: pommission'). Followinp the zrforesaid order, the present Writ t etition deserves to be allowed.

2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for resporrdent I I No.3 did not dispute the said fact

3. In 'rien, of the said submissions, this Oor-rrt is of the considere I vielr, that the present Writ Petition a 1so desen-es to be allowe d follon ing the aforesaid order, datt:d OS .O9 .2024 , passed b1 the Division Bench of this Court in \l'.['.No.14027 of I t - To, J "l 2 1n

2024. and that the order, dated 0g.04.2024 passed FA.tA.Nos.1893 ard 1894 of 2023 in F.A.No.747 of 2023 bv the State Commission is liable to be set aside, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,00O/_ (Rupees two thousand only) before the State Commission, within a period of trvo (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the order, dated O8.O4.2024 passed in FA.IA.Nos.1893 and lg94 of 2023 in F.A.No.747 of 2023 by the State Commission is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD SI BHAVANI SWAMY ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFI CER edressal Commission, I The Registrar Telangana State Consumer Dispute Hyderabad' One CC to SRl. MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court for the State of Telangana at Htderabad- [OUTI 2 3 4 KKS GJPw Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 \- '.\\i 18 SEP m6 \.." 1'll r- , ,- <i:: ., . '-,' ' _-;.1.-' 'i i) l/ ORDER WP.No.34039 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS + ,dd \qr- A{\a' L THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14O27 of 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Sri Justice Namauarapu Rajeshuar Ro'o) This writ petition is hled seeking the following relief: ".-....... lo issue w'rit, order direction particularly in the nature oJ' W'rit of Certiorari calling for the records in relating to Ordar passed in F.A.l.A.No.l879 of 202 j and F.A.l.A.No.l880 of 2023 in F.A (SR).740 of 2023 on the fle o!'|'h respondent fled against the Orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No.9 ol 2018 and set aside the same". l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

2. that aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, in C.C.No.9 of 2OI8, the petitioner preferred an appeal in F.A.(Sr).No.74o of 2023. Initially, the appeal was filed through the earlier counsel. Due to his workload, the earlier counsel could not pay proper attention to the batches of appeals frled by him. In such circumstances, the petitioner has changed his counsel ald requested the new counsel to attend to all such cases fIled by the then counsel. Accordingly, the new counsel took the return of the bundles and, having noted the objections 2 raised b1, the office, complied with the said o rjections and re-submjtted the frle with an application to conrlone the delay in the re-presentation of the appeal ir-rdical-ing the aforesaid reasons. Leerned counsel appearing for the petitroner further 3. submitted that notwithstanding the application to condone delay. Ilowever, in similar matters, the Tel'rngana State Commiss,ion has been condoning the delay in representing the appr:als by the very same petitioner' and despite bringing such a fact to the notice of the State Commission' without considering the same, the I'As were dismissed' Consequ-'ntly, the appeal was also reje(:ted by the impugnel order dated 08.O4.2024' \

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionJr further submitted that it is common knowledge that i'there is any delay in the re-presentation of the appeals, normally, the delay oc,lurs in the office of the Advocate I o whom the matter is entrusted' Such inadvertent de lays in the re-preserLtations are caused due to the mixil rg-up of files and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's office ' Thus, there is a justification for condoning the delay in re- l presentation of the appeal when there is a bonahde mistake on the part of the advocate or his offlce, including the clerk. If such delay is not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner, and there would be no justification for putting the petitioner's interest in jeopardy on account of the mistake made by the Advocate. The said delay is neither deliberate nor wanton but merely because of the change in counsel. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order dated

08.04.2024 passed in F.A.l.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.)No.74O of 2023 and allow the writ petition

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. t

6. This Court, having considered the said submission made by the Iearned counsel for the petitioner, is of the hat view that in the instant case, the State Commission dismissed F.A.LA.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023 on O8.O4.2O24 by observing as follows :- "8. The affdavit and petition tn 1.A.1879/202i was f led by M/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal of the office goes to show that it was filed 4 I on 01.08.2022, but therc is no IOTA of evidencc t,t shov that it wzs./iled on 26.07.2022 as claimed by the petition:t'. '[hc caust' for delay of425 days is the misplacement of the buncllc lt is trot mzntioned, where it was misplaced i.e- eitht:r in thc of1ice of A,lvocote or in the off,r" o-f Pctitioner itselt It is also ct,tegorically mcntioned lhat the counsel has givert tto ohicction fo, procuring thefles, it took time, there.fore, thcrr is a daluv. If thz some is correct, in all likelihood, M/s Rakesh I urtghi. ntighr hc,ve given the bundle to lhe petitioner either on .6.07.2022 or u 01.08.2022 or even before 26.07.2022. Thcre is tto clorih' on th s aspecL Il is not mentioned from which dute onvartls the delay of425 days was counted because, there is no rt orstmcnt oJ tha olfice that on what date the pelitiot r(tunt(d lbr compliance. The petitioner has counted the l(l ), .fiont 15.06 2022, but the date of its retltrn is n;tntioncd as 26.07 2022. Bul. as per the olfce seal, the F.7 va: n,prt'sented ^as on 01.08.2022. [t goes lo show that the petitioner n ctttiont,d thc dates of his choice as he thinks fit, bLLt, the record is otltcnt ise.

9. The' bundle goes to show that on 01.08.20J2, thc p<tition las represented but, it was agatn returned on 05.09.)t)2\ ttith an ob,iectir.tn thatfve more copies of delay petitions ar,' raquired to be f led. On 16. 1 1.2023, the FA was agatn re1 rcst,nre d by cornplying with objection offurnishing four ntore toltrcs of the peLition." " l ,'. lt is the arguments of petitioner counstl tfuu lhis Commission has already condoned some of tlrc pet tior$ of the satrc petitioner in representing the appeal as such, ihcse peti.tions are also shall be allow,ed in the samc line;. LL'c ue of lhe viex, that the above argument cannot be apprec,atcd.lit, the 5 two reasons, viz.:- (i) the misplacement of bundle and again tracing out the same is dt[ficult /o dssess. (ir) If a persons' memory once lost, it is diJficult to assess when it will again surface in the mind. It may be few days, months and years. However, if once tlrc bundlc is traced out, again forgetting the same for another 440+ da.vs is difficult to believe. So, we are of the view that therc are no bona.,fides in the case on hand, more so, when hro petttions are llad with lhe delay of 400 days. In these circumstances, this Commission condoning the delay in other petitions, where one pctition is with major delay and another is with few davs delav cannot be taken as yardstick to allow lhe presenl pctitions. 'l'he substantial rights accrued to the Rl/Complainant will be at stake. x,lrcn the petitions are fled without bonafides.

12. In the result, the both thc petilions in IA 1879/2023 and 1880/2023 are dismissed vithout costs. Consequently, the appeal also stands rcjcctL'd. " 7 . As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the same petitionei] some of the petitions frled for condonation of delay in representing the appeals were allowed, subject to the imposition of costs. However, in the present case, the delay in re-presentation of the appeal is not condoned. The petitioner stated that he had changed his earlier counsel because of his heavy load of work, as he could not pay proper attention to the batch of appeals frled by him. The new counsel attended to 6 all such cases filed by the earlier couns,:l. 'lhe new counsel after noting the objections raised by the ofhce, complie,l with the same and resubmitted the file with applications to condone the delay in re-prest ntation of the appeal. The petitioner also stated that the delay occurred due to the misplacement of the bundle. The tbseruation of the Stal e Commissioner was that it was r ot mentioned where it was misplaced. It is needless to sterte that had it really b€en known to the petitioner where it r.r as misplaced, the delay lvould not hav'e been occurred. A lrarty does not stand to gain an5rthing by deliberately delayi eg thr: appeal remedy. It is also apposite to mention that the petitioner should not suffer for the mistake comm itted by the counsel'r; office. As such, the Commissioner ,)ught to have placed reliance on the submission made b1' ttie learned counsel for the petitioner and ought to eave allowed LA.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023, lut the State Commisr;ioner erred in dismissing I.A.Nos. lB79 of 2023 and 188() of2023.

8. It ir; relevant to refer to the categorical olrservations of the Hon ble Apex Court in its judgment in TiOLLECTOR, 7 LILND ACQWSITION, ANANINA0 AND ANOTHER Vs. MSI.KATIJI AND OTHERST, wherein the principles of condoning delay have been dealt with, and it was held as follows : -

3. The legislature has conlerred the power lo condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the lndian Linlitation Act o/. l96J in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parfies by disposing of matters on .,merits,,. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to applv rhe lau.in a meaningfitl manner which subserues the ends of jLrsticc _ thar being rhe life-purpose for the existence of the instirutron of cotrts. lt is common knowledge that this Court has been nnking a jusrirfiably libcral approach in mattcr.\ instituted in th$ Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courls in the hierarchy. And sttch a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that; " l. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to bene./it by lodling an appeal late. I

2. Refitsing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being lhrown out at the very threshold ancl cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay ts condoned the highest that can happen is lhal a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained,' does not mean lhat a pedantic approach should be made. Why nol every hour,s '1r98zy z scc roz .t 8 dzlav, et'ery second's delay? The doctrine must be applici in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4 llhen substantial justtce and technical consideiations are p.tted against each other, cause of substant al ju.srite d,:setves to be preferred for the other side canrut claint to htNe vested right in injustice being done because of a notr d,'liberate delav.

5. There is no presumption lhd.t delay is L,t:cttsioncd dr'liberately, or on account of culpable negliger ce, or on accotnt of mala fides. A litigant does not sland to bene.[it by r(sorting to delay. [n fact he runs a serious risk. "

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respectzcl not on a<:count of its power to legalize injustice on technical gtounds but because it is capable of remouing inpstice antd s expected to do so. Maktng a justice-oiented approach . fr tm ,his pe'rspectiue, there u)as sufficient cause for ccndoning the delag in the institution of the oppeal.....". (emphaqis supplied)

9. Th: aforesaid judgment of th'e Hon'blt: Apex Court has clea rly held that Courts cannot adopt an inflexible approacl) while dealing with applications to condone delay, more so when the delay has been explainecl with a reasonatlle cause and justification. Therefole, in view of the abov: submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judilment of the /. ,1 9 ,./' Honble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay in re-presenting the appeal, subject to the imposition of costs.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated O8.O4.2024 passed 1n F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.74O of 2023, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,OOO/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the Consumer Legal Aid A/c. TSCDRC, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed I SUJOY PAUL, J NAII{AVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

05.o9.2024 Prv