High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that circumstances stated in tn"iiilr*"n rir"d therewith, the Hioh court may be pleased to issue writ order oirection particularly in the nature of virit of certiorari calling for d#;'pasl;l in F'qrn r'ro '1889 or2023 and FAIA the records in relating " No. 1890 of 2023 in F.A''dil "il-it zozl on the file of 3rd Respondent filed aoainst the orders of tnJ;ilir"i-consumer Disputes Redressal commission, n"oirrtro i" c.c.No. 17312018 and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos'1&2: -.. Counsel for the Respondent No'3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER it' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAvILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRI PET T ITIO NNo .2a 5240F2o24 ORDER : (per Horrbte sr1 Jtlstlce Abtunand KuDylr ShQuili) i I i I When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel anlearinS for the petitioner had informed the Court that the rssue raised in the present Writ petition is squarely covered by the order, dated o5.09.2024, passed by the Drvision Bench of this Court in W.p.No. 14022 of 2024 andthe said Writ petition vt as allowed by setting aside the order, dated Oa.O4.2O24 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Hyderabad (for short, ,the state commission,). Following the aforesaid order, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

2. Learned Government pleader appearing for respondent No.3 did not clispute the said fact.

3. In vierv of the said submissions, this Court is of the COnSidered view that the present Writ Petition also deserves to be aiiorved following the aforesaid order, dated C)5 09 2024' passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W'P'No' 14C27 of .,.:-ij 2 2024, and that the order, dated OB'O4'2O24 passed in FA.IA.Nos.1889 and 1890 of 2023 in F'A'No'745 of 2O23 by the State Commission is liable to be set aside' subject to the conditionofthepetitionerpayingcostsofRs.2,0o0/-(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'1889 and lBgO of 2023 in F.A.No.745 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 ciosed' //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. OS MAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SEC ON OF FICER To, HYderabad.

1. The Registrar, Telangana State Consumer Disputes' Redressal Commission' 2. One CC to SRI' MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Advocate iOPUCI q Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies' High Court for the State of Telangana at - HYderabad. [OUTI h{:}"}:'fl$3i:itl,ll; l,'s"l KKS GJP YV ^tzliiiaixf024' passed bv the Division HIGH COURT DATED:17t06t2025 i * ,:. .a a i :.' - '. t'. I :,\i^rla- (-,^ *J J $g stP 216 I ORDER WP.No.28S24 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,flA u- -.zfi' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRI PETITION No. 14027of2 o24 ORD ER: ftter Hon'ble Si Justice N<tmauarapu Rajeshutar Roo) AND T 4 This writ petition is frled seeking the following relief . . . . ... . . to issue writ' order direction particularly in the nature of l{rit of Certtorari calling for the records in relating to Order passed in F'A I A'No 1879 of 2023 and F.A.l.A.No'1880 of 2023 in F'A (SR) 740 of 2023 on the file of 4'h respondent Jiled against the Orders of the Dislrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission' Arlilabad in C'C No'9 of 2018 and set aside the same"' 2 LearnedcounselappearingforthepetitionerSubmits 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)'N o'74O of 2023' Initially' the appeal was filed through the earlier counsel' Due to his workload, the earlier counsel could not pay proper attentiontothebatchesofappealsfrledbyhim.Insuch 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 returnofthebundlesand,havingnotedtheobjections 2 raised by the oflfice, crrmplied with the said objecti re-submitted the file . "" application to cond delay in the re-prese"*"n Ltation of the appeal indicat aforesaid reasons. ons and one the ing the a.-l ::':, ;

3. Learned counse.l appearing for the petitioner further submitted that notwithstanding the application to condone delay. However, in similar matters, the Telangana 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 tmpugned order dated 08.O4.2024

4. Lear.ned 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 fe-pfesentations are caused due to the miing_up of trtes and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's offrce ' Thus' there is a justification for condoning ttre delay in re- /; 3 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 loss to the petitioner' and there would be no justihcation for putting the petitioner's interest in jeopardy on account of the mistake mad'e by the Advocate' The said delay is neither deliberate nor wanton but merely because ofthechangeincounsel'Therefore,appropriateordersbe passed in the writ petition by settin$ 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')N o'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 cor'rnsel for the petitioner' is of the hat view that in the instant case, the State Commission dismissed F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 arrd 1880 of 2023 rn F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023 on 08.O4'2O24 by observing as follows : - "8. The ffidavit and petitton in 1.A.1879/2023 was filed by M/s R.K-Sanght. The seal of the ffice goes to show that it was filed 4 ' 1 on 01.09.)U22. bur rhere . no IorA of evidence b shoh' that it was Jiled on 26.02.2022 ,rs ''o'^"0 u' the pefitioner' The cause Jbr detav of 425 days ,, : '"7'o'"*ent of the bundle rt is not menfioned, where it nor'" Advocate or in the ;r!"''i*!",';,?,::::,,,";*;,,f":;: categorica/ly mentionecl rl the counsel has given no objection Jbr procuring th"n,nr, ,, l, therefore, there is a deray If the same is correct, ,n orr'or M/s Rakesh sunghi' might have given the bundle ,o ,,"n""\'oo' "'n, " r " "ouu'r,o'n' o t . o 8. 2 o 2 2 r r r u "l"r "o j'i.t : ;:: ; r;"';' ": : :::: :: ;, : o .n this ctspect. It is not menh detay of 425 rtays rn, o./ the ffice ,ho, o, *hor'"d compliance. The petirionc 15.06.2022, but the date 26.07.2022. But, as per rr" ,'[ on 0r.0g.2022. It goes to ro!'" dates of his choice as he ,0,r1.l,."'uJi" i"':"';::;:::r':::: t'om which datu onwarcrs the because' there is no e dorsement te the pefition wos returnecl for countetl the clelay .fron itt rerurn is mentioned as seal' the FA was represented

9. The bundte goes to show that on 01.0g.2022, the petition was representecr but, it rvos again rettrrnetr on 05.0g.2022 with an objection thot five more copies of.lelay petittons are required to be filed. On l6.t1.2023, the FA yva.s again represented by complying with objection ofJitrnishing four more copits of the petition_', "ll It is the arguments of petitioner counser that this Commission has already condonecl some of the petitions of the sdme petittoner in representing the appeal as such, these petitions are also shall be allou,ed in the same ltnes. llre are of the view that the above argument cannot be appreciated for the ,/, 5 'and tuo redsons, uiz :' (i) the misplaceruent of bundle tacing out the same * dilJicult lo dssess (tt) If a persons' memoty once lost' it is difJicult to assess when it will again surface in the mind' tt mdy be few days' months and years' However, if once the bundle is traced out' again forgetting the sane for another 440+ days ts difficult b believe So' we the view th(tt there are no bona'fides in the case on haldt more so, tthen trDo petitions are filed 'teith the delay of 400 davs ln these circumstdnces' this Commission condoning the delay tn other petitions' where one petition is with maior delay and anothcr is with lew days delay cannot be taken as yardst'ick to allow the present petitiotls The substantial rights accrued to the Rl/Complainant will be at stake' when the petitions are filed 'are o'f wtthout bonafides'

12. In the result' the both the petitions in IA 1879/208 and ConsequentlY, the 1880/2023 ate dismissed without costs appeaL also stands rejected " 7 As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitroner in resPect of the same Petitioner' some of the petitions fried 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 hearry load of work, as he could not pay proper attention to the batch of appeals fited by him' The new counsel attended to t 6 mentioned ay occurred servation of the earlier counsel. The new objections raised by the office, and resubmitted the file with tation of the all such cases filed by counsel, after noting the complied with the same applications to condone the delay in re-presen appeai. The petitioner also stated that the del due to the misplacement of the bundle. The ob the State Commissioner was that it was not where it was misplaced. It is needless to state that had it really been known to the petitioner where it was misplaced, the deiay would not have been occurrecl. 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 har.e arlowed I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 18BO of 2023, but the State Commissioner erred in dismissing I.A.Nos. 1879 of 2023 and 1880 of2023. lt is relevant to refer to the categorical ohserva'tions of 8, the Hontrle Apex Court in its judgment in coLLE.cToR' I I i I I I I l t l j I I I I I i l I i l I \ t i 1 i I I l 7 ANANTNAG AND I,AND ACQUISITION' IIIsI.KATIJI AND }TIIEBST' wherein condoning delay have been dealt with' follows : - ANOTIIER Vs' the princiPles of and it was held as

3. The legislature has conJ.erred the power to condone delay ';r-;;r";rr section 5 of the Indian Linitatton Act of l96j in order to enable the courts rc do substantial justlce b parties by d.isposing of matters ttn "mertts"' The expresston " sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves tlte ends of justice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the instilution of courts lt is ;t;^;- knowledge that this Court has been rnaking a lr-rrn*, liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court- But the tnessage does not appedr 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: tand to benefit bY lodging " 1 . Orrlinarily a litigant does not s an aPPeal late 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in d meritorious the very threshold and cause of matter being thrown out justice being defeated As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits a,fter hearing the parties' 'tt

3. "Every day's tlelay must be explained" does not mean thdt a pedantic approach should be made' Why not every hour's '1tetl1 z scc tor . t : delay, every second,s ctelay? The doctrinte must bct applyscl in a rafional common sense pragmatic mqnner. 4. Wen substantial justice a pitted against each orher,nd technical considet alions are leservesrt"o,"r",*i,t,:;::r"::,,:;t:;','::"1"":*: hate vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate deloy. J. deliherately, or on account oJ. account of mala fides. A litigant resorting to deloy. In fact he runs I hcre ts no presumption lhat delay is otcasioned culpable negligenc:, or on does not stond to bencfit by a serious risk.,' is respected not on injustice on tuchnicar capable of remouing iniustice

6. It must be graspecl that accottnt of its potuer ,o i,t"o'""* grounds but because rr rr"n and is expected to d.o so. Making a justice_orient perspectiue,therewasrrrlr"r.rlrl'".ri:^r":::rrr:; the delag in the institution of rhe appeol.....,.. (emphasis supplied) Hon'ble Apex Court

9. The aforesaid judgment of the 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 justification. Therefore, in view.of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for tkre petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the I t I I I I 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'O4'2O24 passed in F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 ol 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, miscelianeous petitions' if any are pending, shall stand closed' SUJOY PAUL, J NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

05.o9.2024 Prv