The High Court · 2025

Order

(L'er Hott'ltle Sn Justtce Ablu o d Kumar StLttuiLi) Wht:n the matter is taken up for hearing, I 'iLrnecl counsel appearing for the petitioner had informed the .jourt t hat the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squzre'l1 covered by the order, dated 05.09.2024, passed by the Divrsion Bench of

this Court in W.P.No. 14027 of 2024 and the s:ri,l Writ Petition was allou,ed by setting aside the order, dal t.d Oa.O4.2024 passed b1, the Telangana State Consumer Disp tres Redressal Commissir>n, Llyderabad (for short, 'the State Comrlission'). Foliowing the aforesaid order, the present Writ Pe tjtion deserves to be allou,ed.

2. Learned Government Pleader appearing I rr respondent No.3 did not dispute the said fact.

3. In vieq of the said submissions, this Ctr ,urt is of the considered vieu, that the present Writ Petition al;o deserves to be allowecl following the aforesaid order, dat('( L O5.O9.2O24, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. t) No. 14027 of \\ I I I I \ t 2 2024, and that the order, dated 08.04.2024 passed in FA.lA.Nos. 1895 and 1896 of 2023 in F.A.No.748 of 2023 by the State Commission is liable to be set aside, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the State Commission, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 08.O4.2024 passed in FA.IA.Nos. 1895 and 1896 of 2023 in F.A.No.748 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 stard closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKHA RANI ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER The Registrar. Telangana State Consumer Dispute Hyderabad. One CG to Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies edressal Commission, G \ To, TJ T 1 2 3 \.s; 1 HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 ORDER WP.No.34041 of 2024 'l\- ' 'n.o,o)\ /, :) l'() t-- 03 rti zffi \.. ".\...r \ -Ds. -=....-.2 ,/ ^ + . -)'' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lJ 1l'r\^ WL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14O27 of 2024 ORDER: fuer Hon'ble Sn Justice Namauarapu Rajeshuar Rao) This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: 4--....... to issttt'v.rit, order directiort particularly in the nalure of' LYrit of ('.crtiorari calling ./br the records in relating to Ortltr passctl in F.A.l.,'1.N'o. 1879 o/ )023 and F.A.1 .1.\'o.l88t) oJ' )013 in F.A.(SR).71() of 1023 on rhc ./ile of 4't' respontlent .filetl against the Ordars of the District Consunrcr Dispttlcs llcdrcs.sul Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and scl aside the sante"-

2. L,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, in C.C.No.9 of 2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal in F.A.(Sr).No.740 of 2023. Initially, the appeal was filed through the earller counsel. Due to his workload, the earlier counsel could not pay proper attention to the batches of appeals filed by him' In such circumstances, the petitioner has changed his counsel and 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 + a, raised bv the office, complied rvith the sairi objections and re-submjtted the file ,"vith an application o condone the delay in the re-presentation of the appea I indi<:ating the aforesirid reasons.

3. Leanted counsel appearing lor the pc irioner further submittecl that notwithstanding the applica(lon to condone delay. Hor,vever, in similar matters, the Tt iangana State Commission has been condoning the dela_1.. i r reprcsenting the ap peals by the very sa me petitione r. anrl despite bringin.g such a fact to the notice of the Stat< Commission, rvithout conside.ng the same, the I.As. Lve rr: clismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also rej,r,rtecl by the impugnr:d order dated Og.O4.2024.

4. Learnecl counsel appearing for the pet,i roncr further submitted that it is common knorvleclge that il ther_e is ant, del:Ly in the re-presentation of the appeals. r rrtrmally, the dela5r occurs in the ofhce of the Advocate 1o rvlrorl the matter js entrusted. Such inadvertent dciays in the re presentations are caused due to the mixin g up of files ancl mistakt:s of the clerks in the advocate,s rtfice. Thus, there is a justification for condoning the <lelav in re ,/. -) presentation of the appeal when there is a bonafrde mistake on the part of the advocate or his office, including the clerk. If such delay is not condoned, it would cause irreparable Ioss 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.O4.2024 passed in F.A.l.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1BB0 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.)No.74O of 2023 and aliow the writ petition.

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

6. This Court, having considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the hat view that in the instant case, the State Commission dismissed F.A.l.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 arj 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023 on 08.04.2024 by observing AS follows:- "8. The afiidavit and petition in 1.A.1879/2023 was.filed bv M/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal o/ the olJice goes to show'that it v,as.filed .1 , , t,:, on 01.08.2012, bfi thcre is no IOI'A of et'idenc... to.shor tlnt it xas flcd on 26.07-20)2 as claimcd b.y the petit,t ni,r. l'he cattsa Jbr dela_v of 125 days is the ntisplacement ol !h( I,r.tntllt,. lt i.t not mctttioned, ttherc it vas mi.sploced i.e. eitlrcr t,r lhc oflice ol' -4tl ocotc or in the o.ficc oJ pctitionat ir.:rtl lr is als<t cat ,goricall.t ntetlionctl tltat the tounsellrrr.r.gir, ,r no oltj11.7 js17 for proctu-ing the /iles, it took timc, tht,refort,. thL,, ,., is tt dt,lat. I/ Ihc santc is coryect, in alt likctihood, A,[/_s Rttl;es,r S ]tllti, t11i.ght hatc ,qi,''cn thc bundlc to thc petitioncr eithcr ot, l6.l)7 l()ll or on t)l 08.2022 or even befor<' 26.07.2022. 'l lrcrt, i. trtt clurtlv on ,hi.\ atp(ct lt is not nentioned fl-on vhich drt,, ,)lt,ttt[ds th(. ,ltlt;t o1 125 tln.t s w.a-s t.ounted bccaust,. tlrcr<, is tt, ,..ttdor:t.ntcnr ,t/ th<, offict tlrut on $lmt date the pctilio \t t.; ;.t,turrtL,,l for .ot pli(trce. The petitioncr has counltd th,, rlt,ltl. li.ont ,'5.()6.2022, but the date of its retlu.tt is t,tL.ntiortctl tts 16.()7.2022. But, as per the oLfice seal, the lA tt,t t.t,presc,ntetl L,n 01.08 202) It goes to shou, that th.e petitionar ,nt,utiotlci thc alatr:.; of his choice as lr thinks Jit, but, the rtcortl r ()t11(,n\.t.\c.

9. 7l,c burdlc goes kt sltov tltut on 0t.08.20)2. tl , 1,,,ri1je1: 1.,615 r,:.prt'scnled but, it h,as asain rctumctl on ()5.09 '(tll ttitlr tur oblk'liott that.five more c.opias o.f delav pctitions (,r . rtqtri.rtcl to b: .lilad. On 16.11.20)3, the IA v,as asnitl r(t,t,.stnr,rl bt, ct)tnlh itr! tt ith objcction o[.t'iu-nishin.q four ruot.,, t,ttics rtl thc pctiti')n. " " ) 1 . It is thc argum(nts oJ petitioner courL::t I tlu.tt this Comntission has alreadl, condoned sonrc of the pt,t,ttorts of the sanrc pc'litiontt in representing lhe appaal tts ;rrc:h. these petitions are also slnll be allowed in the sante ltn,,,. ll'e rtrc oJ lh! t,it'\1 that the above argument cannot be apprct, r,Ltl for thc !€ ./' ) two reasons, viz. - (0 the misplacenrcrtt of bundle and again tracing out the same is diffcult ,o assass. (ii) ( a persons' memor? once lost, it is dilficult to asscss when it will again surfaca in the nLind. It may bc fert days, months and years. How,ever, d once thc bundle is lraced out, again -forgetting thc same Jbr another 440+ da.,-s is ttiLficult to bclie.ve. So, ve are of' the view that there are no bona/ides in the case on hand, morc so, u'hcn hro petitions are.filed y,,ith the delay ql 400 davs. In these circumstances, this Contntissiott corutoning the delay in other petitions, vthere one patition is with major delay and another is u,ith fev davs dclav cannot be tuken as vardstick lo allou, lhe present patitions. The strbslanliul rights accrucd to tlrc Rl/Complainant u l be at stoke, hhcn the petitions are.filad without hornfides.

12. In the result, the both the petitbns in IA 1879/2023 and 1880/2023 are dismisscd vithout costs. Conscquently, thc appeal also slands rejectcd. " 7 . As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner ln respect of the same petitioner, some of the petitions filed. for condonation of dela.v 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 filed by him. The new counsel attended to i I 6 all such cases fi1ed by the earlier counsel. The new counst-.l, after noting the objections raise,: by the office, complied rvrth the same and resubmitte: the flle with appliceLtions to condone the delay in re_pres,_.ntation of the al)peal The petitioner also stated that the lela,r. occurred due to the misplacement of the bundle. Thr: observation ol the St:tte Commissioner was that it was I r()t mentroned '"vl-rere it r,,ra s misplaced. It is needless to slirte that had it really been l<nown to the petltioner where it v zr s nrisplaced, the ctelzr_v rvoulcl not have been occurred. A 1rzrrtr,. does not st:rnd to gairr anything by deliberately delar ing thc appeal remedy. It is also apposite to mention that the petitioner should not suffer for the mistake comr:r Ll tecl b_v the cotrnsel s ofllce. As such, the Commissioner ( )rrght to have placed reliance on the submission made b1 the learned colrnsel for the petitioner and ought to lLave allolved I.A.Nos. l87'9 of 2O23 and. 1Bg0 of 2O23, l-;,tt the State Commissioner erred in rlismissing I.A.Nos. .t 379 of 2023 and 1880 ot2023. B. It is rr:levant to refer to the categorical observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in C:OLLECTOR, '7 LAND ACQWSITION, ANANTNAG AND ANOTHER Vs. MsI.I(ATIJI AND OTHERST, wherein the principles of condoning delay have been dealt with, and it was held as follows :-

3. The legislature has conferued the poter lo condonc delq by enactittg Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act o! t963 in order to enable tlrc courts to do substuntial justicc to parties by disposing of ma ers on "mcrits"_ The ctpressktrt "st(/icient cause" employed b.l, the lcgislature is tulcquatcll. elaslic to cnable the courts to apply tha law.in a nttaninglil manner wlich subserves the end.s of justice - that bcing tlrc life-purposc for lhe existence of the institution ofcourts. lt ts common kno*-ledge that this Court has been malcing a justtfiably liberal approach in mancrs instituted in this Court. But lhe message does not appear to hate pcrcolatcd dou,n to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such n libaral approach is udopted on principlc as it is reali:cd that. '.'1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benef.t by todging ctn appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can rcsult in a meritoriotrs mattcr being lhro\a,n out at thc r.ery threshold and cause o.[ juslice being defeated. As against this when dclay is condoned the highest that cdtt happen is thal a causc would be decided on merits after hearing the porties. 3- "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean lhat d pedantic approach should be made. IWty not et,ery hour's Iltssly u scc toz 8 (. dclav, evety sacond's delay'? The doctrine mustlt' ttpltlicd in a r. ionol comntotl scn.se pragmatic ntattner.

1. Illrcn subslanlial justice and technical consiLl rcttions are pitrctl ugainst cdch other. cause of substot 'ttl ittslice rlcscr.|r'.s to bc prefert'ed.fbr tlrc olher side c tot clditn lo htt:c tt'.stcd right in injusticc being donc becttr' ' o-f u nor JL.l;Ltt t ttt( del,^.

5. Tltarc is rto prcsumption lhat delal' i'; ttccrtsioned tlclibcrtteb, ot' on accoutll of culpable neglig, nce. ttr on acrottut of ntttla fidas..1 litigant tlocs rtot stand t t btnclit bt' ra\.)rlrn.q to dtlut. In litct hc rltns o serious risk.

6. [t mttst be glrasped that iudiciary is resp<', tec] rrct on ac(ount of tts pouer to legalize injustice Qt' teclLrical qrcnncls but l:ecause it is capable of remoLt't eJ injL:stice anL:l is expecte d to do so. Mokrng a justicc oiented approach ,rom this pet'spcctiue, th.ere tuas sufficient cause fot con.doning tlrc rl<'lag in tlrc institutiotl of the oppeal.. . . .' . (em1> hasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon't Ie Apex Court has clearl,v held that Courts cannot ado;rl an inflexible approach while dealing with applicatiolls to condone delay, more so when the delay has been e:plained with a reasonabie cause and justification. Theref rlre, in view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitiorler and in view of the aforesaid jtrlgment of the *.r" 9 Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay in re-presenting the appeal, subject to the imposition of costs I O. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed 1n F.A.l.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (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 pendrng, shall stand closed. SUJOY PAUL, J NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

05.o9.2024 Prv