High Court · 2025

lndia praying that in the tt"t"*it'' the Hish Court may be circumstances stated in tiJ '?'i'"iiiir"o pleased to issue writ oroel'El#"''"#'p"nt'r"ly. i.n tI" nature of Writ of Certiorari F'A'l A No l Bee of 2023 and callins for the recorcrs '" '"i';;;i;"dJglg;*:9:l F.A.l.A. No. '1900 of 2o23'i["i]n-sn 75;c ot 2023 on the file of 3rd Respondent filed against the Orders ot in"'Oistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission' ;Jilr;;; in c.c.No.238/2018 and set aside the same' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel for the Respondent No'3: GP FOR SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.34O5O OF 2o24 ORDER : Per Hon,ble Si Justrce Abhinat(i Kurrnr Stwuih) 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 squarelv covered by the order, dated O5.O9.2O24, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 14027 of 2024 and the said Writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order, dated Oa.O4.2O24 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, HSrderabad (for short, 'the State CommisSion,). Following the aforesaid order, the present Writ petition deserves t \ to be allowed.

2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3 did not dispute lhe 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 .2024 , passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14027 of i l l t 2 2024, and that the order, dated' O8'O4'2O24 passed 1n FA.IA.Nos.1899 and 190O of 2023 in F'A'No'750 of 2023 by 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 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 08.04.2024 passed in FA IA'Nos'1899 and lgOO of 2023 in F.A.No.75 O of 2Ct23 by the State Commission is set aside' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition sha,ll stand closed' SD'. A"H.S. S A GOWRI SH TANT REG ANKAR ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secrtou oFFlcER 1 I i?;'e:,.:lx ttx: {u,{';'..; i ili:rs*{ :::::::}:;::: * H*r :: il -'*, %fl eo,";' ii{lrff :! :lt,.tJ:i1l? ' 5. Two-CD CoPies 331" of re I a ns a n a' at HvderabadlOU l I t35 To, TJ dTKS ng with the Copy of Order dated 05'09'2024 ln W'P'No'1 4027 ot 20241 (Alo HIGH COURT DATED:17tO6t2O2S () .. 'fHE Si..:-'-\ :.\ , r/ /r \:.\ v/. : ORDER WP.No.34050 of 2024 0 3 sEP 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAV ARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO AND T IT ION No. 140 27 of2o24 ORDER Rojeshu.or Ra.o) Thi @er Hon'bte Sn Justice N(1m.1u.Irrlpu s writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "......... to issue writ' order direction particliarly in the nature of lUrit of Certiorari calling for the records in reldting to Order passer) in L A I A No-1879 of 2023 and ';;:-;';;" ,*t of 2023 in p- A (sR) 740 of 2023 on the 'tr*'rrr:'respondqntfi led,:r*';::r::r,*::';::rrt:: District Consumer Disqutt Adilabad in C'C No g of 20l s and set aside thc same" ' 2. karned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that aggrieved bY ttre order of the District Consumer Commission' Aditabad' in C'C'No'9 of 2Oi8' the petitioner preferred an appeal in F'A'(Sr) No '740 of2023' lnitially' the appeal was filed through the earlier counsel' Due to his workload, tn: earlier counsel could not pay proper attention to the,batches of appears {iled by him. In such circumstances, the petitioner has changed his counsel and reqrrested the new counsel to atte nd to all such cases hled by the then counsel' Accordingly' the new counsel took the return of the bundles and' having noted the objections 2 raised by the office, complied with the said objections and re-submitted the frle with an application to condone the delay in the re-presentation of the appeal indicating the aforesaid reasons. 3 Learned counser appearing for the petitioner further submitted that notwithstanding the application to condone delay. However, in similar matters, the Telangala State Commission 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 dismissed Consequently, the appeal was also rejected by the rmpugned order dated Og.O4.2024. 4' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that it is common knowleilge that if there is any delay in the re-presentation of the appeals, normaliy, the delay occurs in the ofhce of the Advocate to whom the matter is entrusted. Such inadvertent delays in the re-presentations are caused due to the mixJng_up of files and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate,s otEce. Thus, there is a justification for condoning the delay in re- .t 3 presentation of the appeal when there is a bonafide mistake on the part of the advocate or his office' including the clerk' lf such delay is not condoned' it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner' and there would be no juStihcation for putting the petitioner's interest in jeopardy on account of the mi'stake 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 O8.O4.2O24 passed in F'A'I'A'Nos'1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 and allow the writ of 2023 in F'A'(Sr')No'740 for the counsel appearlng petition. 5. Heard the learned petitioner and perused the record' 6. This Court' havrng considered the said submission made by the'learned counsel for the petitioner' is of the hat instant case ' the State Commission view that dismissed F.A'I'A'Nos'1879 of 2O23 and 1880 of 2023 \n F.A.(Sr.).No.7 40 of 2023 on O8'04'2024 by observing as follows :- "8. The ffidavit and petition in I'A'1879/2023 was 'filed by ll{/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal of the ffice goes to show that tt was fled 4 on 01.08.2022, but there is no IOTA of evidence to sltow, that it was filed on 26.07.2022 as claimed. by the petittoner. The cause for delay of 425 days is the misplacement of the bundle. It is not mentioned, where it was misplaced i.e. either in rhe olJice oJ Advocate or in the ffice of petitioner itself. It is also categorically mentioned that the counsel has given no objection .for procuring thefiles, it took lime, therefore, there is a clelay ( the same is coruect, in all liketihood, M/s Rakesh Sanghi, might have given the bunclle to the perifioner either on 26.07.2022 or on 01.08.2022 or even before 26.07.2022. There is no clariry on this aspecr. L is not mentioned from which date onwards the delay of425 days was counted because, there is no endorsement of-thc ofJi6s tltat on what date the petition was returnecl for the delay from I 5.06.202 2, is mentioned as 26.07.2022. But, as per the office seal, the FA was represented on 01 08 2022. It goes to show that the petitioner mentionetr the dates of his choice as he thintrs fit, but, the record is otherwise. The petitioner has counted but the date of its return compliance

9. The bundle goes to show that on 01.0g.2022, the petitiott was represented but, il yyas again returned on 05.09.2022 with an objection thatfve more copies of delay petitions are required to be fled. On 16.t1-2023, the FA wai again represented by complying with objection offurnishing four more copies of lhe pelition. " "ll. h is the arguments of petitioner counsel rhat this Commission has already condoned some of the petitions of the same petitioner in representing the appeal as such, these petitions are also shall be allowed tn the same lines. We are of the vieu, that the above argument cannot be appreciated for the 5 tworedsons,viz.:-(i)themisplacementofbundleandagain tacing out the same is dfficult to assess' (ii) If a persorts' memory once lost' it is difJicult to assess when it will again surface in the mind' It may be few days' months and years' However, if once the bunclle is taced out' again forgetting thc same for another 440+ days ts difJicult to believe So' we are of' theviewthattherearenobonafidesinthecaseonhand'more so. when two petitions are fited with the delay of 400 days ln these circumstances' this Commission condoning the delaf in other petitions, where one petition is ruith mdior delay and another is with few days tlelay cannot be taken ds yardstir:k to allo'rv the present petitions 'the substanttal rights accrued to thc Rl/Complainant will be at stake' when the petitions are filcd withottt bonafides ' 12 ln the result, the both the petitions in IA 1879/2023 and ConsequentlY, the 1880/2023 are dismissed without costs appeal also stands rejected'" 7 As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner 1n 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' ,t However,inthepresentcase,thedelayinre.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 liled' by him' The new counsel attended to ; L',E z 6 all such cases filed by the earlier counsel. The new counsel, after noting the objections raised by the office, complied with the same and resubmitted the file with 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 known to the petitioner where it was misplaced, the delay would not have been occurred. A party does not stand to gain anything by deliberately detaying 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. lB79 of 2023 and, 1880 of 2023, but the State Commissioner erred in dismissing LA.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of2023

8. It is relevant to refer to the categorical observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in COLLECTOR, 7 LAND ACQWSITION' ANANTNAG AND ANOTHE,R VS, Ms..KATTJI AND oTHERgr, wherein the principles of condoning delay have been dealt with' and it was held as follows:-

3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the lndian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to pdrties by disposing of matters on "merits"' The expresston '"ru6r:t"n, cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts Io apply the law in a meaningful manner which subsenes the ends ofiustice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts lt is knowledge thctt this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in mdtters instituted in this "o^^on Court.Butthemessagedoesnotappedrtohavepercolated down to all the othet courts in the hierarchy And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized thal: " t . Ordinarily a litigant does not stantl to beneJit by lodging

2. Refusing lo condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being-. thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated' As against this when delay is condoned the hlghest that can 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 Why not every hour's ' (1987) 2 scc lo7 8 delay, every second,s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. Wen substantial jusrice and technical considerations are pilted ogainst each other, cause of substantial justice desenes to be preferred for the other side cannot claim kt hat'e y'ested right in inju.rtice being done because of a non_ delib, rare dclay.

5. Tlwe ts no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. ,,

6. It must be grasped_.that jud_iciary is respected not on account of its potuer to legalize injushce on technical grouncls but because it is capable of remouing injustice and is expected. to do so. Mabing a justice-oiented approach from this perspediue, there utas sufficient cause for cond.oning the delag tn the institution oJ the appeal....... (emphasis supplied) Hon'ble Apex Court

9. The aforesaid judgment of the has clearly held that Courts cannot adopt an inflexible approach whiie .dealing with applications to condone delay, more so whefi the delay has been explained with a reasonable cause and justification. Therefore, in view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the ./Z 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.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in 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. suJoY PAUL, J , NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J t

05.o9.2024 Prv