The lt/anaging. Director v. 'l . B.Sandeep

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 particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in relating to order passed in F.A.l.A. No. 1g03 of 2o23 and F.A.l.A. No. 1904 of 2023 in F.A. (sR). 7s2 of 2023 on the fite of 3rd Respondent filed against the orders of the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No. 22012018 and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel for the Respondents : - The Court made the following ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.34O59 OF 2024 ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kumar Shauilt) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had informed the Court that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 05.O9.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.l4O27 of 2024 and the said Writ Petition was allowed by setting aside the order, dated Oa.O4.2O21 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressai Commission, Hvderabad (for short, 'the State Commission'). Foliowing the aforesaid order, the present Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3 did not dispute the said fact 3, In view of the said submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition also deserves to be allowed following the aforesaid order, dated O5.O9.2O24, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.l4O27 of 2 2024, and that the order, dated O8.O4.2O24 passed in FA.lA.Nos. 1903 and 1904 of 2023 by the State Commission is liable to be set aside, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.2,OOO/- (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 order.

4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 08.o4.2024 passed in FA.rA.Nos.19o3 and r9o4 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 COPYII SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE N OFFICER IlSi:fl:T*t Telangana state consumer Disputes Redressat commission, One CC to SRt TMAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 SA GJP \q. f6 $g sEP 205 't * !).tr.sp,^.Tci i(l') LI { HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 ORDER WP.No.34059 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 5coq(eby{_ 1(\*" THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14O 27 of 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice Namauarapu Rajeshtaar Rao) This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief nature of Writ of Certiorari catting for the records in relating to Order passed in F.A.I.A.No. l g79 of 2023 and F.A.I.A.No.1880 of 2023 in F.A.(SR).740 of 2023 on the file of 4'h respondent /iled against the Orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and set asitle the same,,.

2. Learned counsel appea_ring 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.T4O of 2023. Initially, the appea_l was filed through the earlier 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 arrd 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 Z raised by the office, complied with the said objections and re-submitted the file with an application to condone the delay in the re-presentation of the appeal indicating the aforesaid reasons.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that notwithstand'ing the application to condone delay. However, in similar matters, the Telangana State Commissi.on has been condoning the delay in representing the appeals 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 dismlssed' Consequently, the appeal was also rejected by the impugned order dated OB.O4'2024'

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that it is common knowledge that if there is any delay in the re-presentation of the appeals' normally' the delay occurs in the office of the Advocate to whom the matter is entrusted. Such inadvertent delays in the re-presentations are caused due to the mixing-up of files and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's office' Thus' there is a justification for condoning the delay in re- 3 presentation of the appeal when there is a bonafide mistake on the part of the advocate or his office, incruding 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.O4.2024 passed in F.A.I.A.Nos. 1879 of 2023 and I8B0 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. 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.I.A.Nos.18Z9 of 2023 and. 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.74O of 2023 on 08.04.2024 by observing as follows :- "8. The alfidavit and petition in 1.A.1879/2023 was filed by M/s R.K.Sanghi The seal of the ofice goes to show that it was filed 1 4 on 01.08.2022, but there is no IOTA of evidence to shov) thdt it was fiLed on 26 07 2022 as cLaimed by the petitioner' The cause for delay of 425 d.ays is the misplacement of the bundlt'' It is not mentioned, u'here it was misplaced i-e either in the office of Aclvocate or in tlrc ffice of Petitioner itself' h is also categnriutlly menlionecl that the counsel has given no objection for proctu ing the Jiles, it took ttme, therefore' there is a delay lf the same is correct, in all likelihood' M/s Rakesh Sanghi' might lruve given the bundle to the petitioner either on 26 07 2022 or on 01.08.2022 or even before 26'07'2022 There is no cldrity on tltis ctspect. It is not mentioned from which date onwards the delay of 425 clays was counted because' there is no endorsement o.f thc ffice that otl what date the petition ta'ds returned for compliancc. Thc petitioner has cotLnted the delay from 15.06.2022, buL Lhe clate r'tf its return is mentioned as 26.07.2022. But, os per the o.flice seaL' the FA u;as represented on 01 .08.2022. It goes to show that the petitioner mentioned the tlates o.f l'tis clrcice as he thinks ft' but' the record is otherwtse

9. The btrnrlte goes to show' that on 01 08 2022' tlrc petition was rcpresenterl bttt' it u'as ngain returnetl on 05 09'2022 with an objectiot't tllat Jive more copies of delay petitions arc required to be Jiled. On t6-ll-2023, the FA was again represented by complyirtg vt'ith objection of .furnishing four more copies of the petitiotl." "11. tt is the arguments of petitioner counsel that this Comm[ssion has already condoned some of the petitions of the same petitioner tn representing the appeal ds such' these petitions are also shall be allowed in the same lineg We are of lhe viel tlrut the above argument cannot be appreciated for the 5 lwo redsons, vtz.:_ (i) the misplacement of bundle and again tracing out the same is dfficutt to assess. (ii) If a persons, memory once lost, it is dfficult to assess when it will again surface in the mind. It may be few days, months and years. However, if once the bundle is traced out, again forgetting the same for another 440+ ttays is dfficult to believe. So, we are oJ. the view thal there are no bonafi.des in the caie on hand, more so, when two petitions are filed with the delay of 400 days. In these circumstances, rhis Commission condoning the tlelay rn other petitions, where one petition is with m(ror delay and anolher is with /bw days delay cannot be taken as yardstick ro allow the present petitions. The substsntial rights accrued to the Rl/Complainant will be at stake, when the petittons are fi.led without bonafdes. 12 In the result. the both the petitions in IA lg79/2023 arut 1880/2023 are dismissed without costs Consequently, the appeal also stands rejected.,,

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the same petitioner, some of the petitions filed 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 ioad of work, as he could not pay proper attention to the batch of appeals filed by him. The new counsel attended to 6 all such cases frled bY the earlier counsel' The new objections raised bY the office' counsel, after noting the and resubmitted the file with complied with the same applications to condone the delay in re-presentation of the appeal. The petitioner also stated that the delay occurred due to the misplacement of the bundle' The observation of the State Commissioner was that it was not mentioned where it was misplaced' It is needless to state that had it really been knorvn to the petitioner where it was misplaced' the delay would not have been occurred' A party does not stand to gain anything by deliberately delaying the appeal remedy. It is also apposite to mention that the petitioner should not suffer for the mistake committed by the counsel's office. As such, the Commissioner ought to have placed reliance on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and ought to have allowed I.A.Nos.1B79 of 2023 and 1B8O of 2023' but the State Commissioner erred in dismissing I'A'Nos'1879 of 2023 and 1880 of2O23 It is relevant to refer to the categoricai observations of 8. the Hon'lrle Apex Court in its judgment in COLLECTOR' ,' 7 LAND ACQIJZSTTION, ANANTNA? AND ANITTTER Vs. MSI.KATIJI AND OTEERST, wherein the principles of condoning delay have been dealt with, and it was herd as follows :- 3, The legislature has confeted the power tb iondone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitqtion Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ,,merits,,. The expression "suffcient cause,, employed by the legislature is adequatety elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subsemes the ends ofjustice _ that being the life-purpose for the existence of tlte institution ofcourts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justrfiably liberal approach in marrers instituted in this Courl But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that; " L Ordinarily a litigqnt does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause oJ. justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that cqn happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained,,does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made- Wy not every hour,s 'lroazy z scc roz 8 delay, every secontl's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferrett Jbr the other side cannot claim to lnve vcsted right in iniustice bcing done becausc oJ'a non' deliberate delaY.

5. There is no presumptton that delay is occasioned deliberarely, or on account of culpable negligence' or on account of mala Jides. A litigant does not stand to bcnefi't by resorling to delay lnfact he tuns a serious risk "

6. It must be grosped that judiciary is respected not on account of its potuer to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of remouing mjustice and is exPected to do so. Making a jushce-oiented opproach from this perspediue, there tuas sufficient cause for condoning the detag in the institution of the appeal' "' (emphasis supPlied) g. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'lcle Apex Court has clearly held that Courts cannot adopt an inflexible approach while dealing with applications to condone delay, more so when the delay has been explained with a reasonable cause and justihcation Therefore, in view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the t 9 Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court de ems it appropriate to condone the delay in re_presenting the appeal, subject to the imposition of costs.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition 1S all.owed by setting aside the order dated 08.O4.2024 passed in F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2O23, 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, misceilaneous pending, shail stand closed. petitions, if any are SUJOY PAUL, J NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

05.09.2024 Prv