High Court · 2025

Telinqana State consume"t\i#']i"'J'' n"JLssal commission' Hvderabad Rep. 6Y its Registrar' (3rd RESPONDENT lS A FORIUAL PARTY) Petition under Atticle 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 caring for the records in relating to order passed in F.A.l.A No 1897 of 2023 andF.A l A No 1898 of 2023 in F'A' (SR) 749 of 2O23 on the file of 3rd Respondent filed against the Orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C C No 237l2O18 and set aside the same Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI' MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel for the ResPondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.34164 oF 20.24 ORDER 2 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Slouilt) 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 squarel-v covered by the order, dated 05.O9.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No. 14027 of 2024 and the sard Writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order, dated O[..O1.2O24 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 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 OS.O9 .2024 , passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.74O2Z of l I i I 2 2024 and the order, dated O8'O4'2O24 passed FA.lA.Nos. 19O3 and 1904 of 2023 by the State Commtssron rs 1n .1 liable to be set aside.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order' dated O8.04.2024 passed in FA'lA'Nos'1903 and l9O4 of 2023 by the State Commission is 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' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// "'^n5B{1ffi1:::l: SECT(ON OFFII \ To, 1 The Registrar, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission' E*si il'lsl xffit3,:Ya,"6RAM with a copy of the order dated 05 09-2024 in W P No B H Ar LA Ad vocate ro P u cr 2 3 4 Two CD CoPies 14027 of 2024 to this (Along order) HIGH COURT DATED:1G tO6t2O2S \r ORDER WP.No.34164 of 2024 '/oi''''' ./,., 1 i: ll ,ii D3 SEP26 .l- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND RAJESHWAR RAO TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU N No. r4o27of o24 ORDERi Qter Hon'ble Si Justice N..maurlrapu Rajeshtttar Roo) PETITIo 2 This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: o.-'' "' to issue writ' order direction parttcularly in the nature of llrit of Certiorari calling for the records in relating to Order passed' in F A'I A No t879 oJ'2023 and F'A I A'No 1880 of 2023 in F'A (SR) 740 of 2023 on the file of 4th respondent filed against the Orders of the District Consumer,Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C'C'No 9 of 2018 and set aside the samc" ' 2. karned 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)'N o'74O of 2023' Lnitially' the appeal was Illed 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 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 raised by the ofhce, complied with the said objections ard re-submitted the fire with an apprication to condone the delay in the re_presentation of the appea.l indicating the aforesaid reasons.

3. Learned counsel 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 ve.ry 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 bv the impugned order dated 0g.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 Ie-pfesentations are caused due to the mixing-up or hles j:-;:: -,:::-_ .:J":" and, rrusrake. ' ., \ustiircat rs .^ ., 3 presentation of the appeal when there is a bonafide 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, ald there would be no justilication 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 O8.O4.2O24 passed in F'A'I'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' 6. This Court, having considered. the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner' is of the hat viewthatintheinstantcase,theStateCommission dismissed, F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2O23 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023 on O8'04'2024 by observing as follows :- "8. The affdavit and petition in I'A'1879/2023 was fled bv M/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal of the office goes to show that it was filed 4 on 01.08.2022, but there is no IOTA of evidence to show that it was Jtled on 26.07.2022 as claimed by the petitioner. The cause for delay of425 days is the mispracement of the bundre. It is not ment[oned, where it was n Adtocate or in the *"7'**!";;,r::::,r':u.;,':'::: ;:;.":::r:;;::0,,'!" jo"oi,"^"i*" j"f"r:;::::,:,":;"; the same is correct, in all li, have given the bundte,, ,r::::::,:::,ir!, #i"fi.;rif!, on 0l_08.2022 or even before 26.07.2022. There is no clarity on this aspect. [t is not mentioned from which date onwards the delav of 425 days v,as countecl because, there is no endorsement of the office that on what date the petition b,as returned for compliance. The pedtioner kas counted the tlelay from 15.06-2022, but rhe date. of its return is metttioned as 26 07 2022 ,ut' as per the office sear, the FA was represented on 01 08 2022- It goes to show that the petitioner metttioned the dates of his choice as he thinrrsft, but, the recortr is otherwise.

9. The bundle goes to show that on 01.0g.2022, the petition was represented hu4 it was again returned on 05.0g.2022 with an objection that fve more copies of delay petitions are requirecl to be filed. On 16.t1.2023. the FA was ogoi, ,"pr"s)rt"rt by complying w,ith objection offurnishing four more copies ol the petition." "1l h is the arguments of petitioner counser that this Commission has already condoned some of the petitions of the same petitioner in representing the appeal as suclt, these petitions are also shall be allowed in the same lines. We are oJ. the viev that the above argument cannot be appreciated for the 5 tworedsons,viz':-(i)themisplacementofbundleandagarn trdcinsoutthesameisdfficulttodssess.(ii)Ifapersons, memory once lost, it is dfficult to assess when it will again surface tn the mind' It may be few days' months and years' However, if once the bundle is tr(tced out' again forgening the same for another 440+ days is dfficulr to believe' So' we are of the view that there are no bonaf'des in the case on hand' more so, when ttvo petitions are filed with the delay of 400 days ln these circumstances, this Commission condoning the delay in other petitions, where one' petition is with major delay and another is with few days delay cannot be taken as yardstick to allow the present petitions The substantial rights accrued to the Rl /Complainant will be at stake' when the pefitions are filed without bonafdes' '' t2. In the result,'the both the petitions in IA 1879/2023 and 1880/2023 are ilismissed without costs Consequently' the appeal also stands rejected'"

7. As rightty contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the same petitioner' some of the petitions frled for cond'onation 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 appeat 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 counsel. The new a-ll such cases hled by the earlier counsel, after noting the objections raised by the office, complied with the same and resubmitted the iile 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 wa.s misplaced, the delay would not havb been occurred. A part5r does not stand to gain anything by deliberately delaying the appeal remedy. It is aiso 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. 1879 of 2023 and. 1880 of 2023, btrt the State Commissioner erred ln dismissing I.A.Nos.1g79 of 2023 and 1880 of2023

8. It is relevant to refer to the categorica-l observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in COLLECTOR, 7 LAND ACQITISITION' ANANfi{AG AND ANOTIIDR Vs' Mst.r{ATrJl aND ITHERSr, 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 Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to. do substantial justice to pdrti.es by disposing of matters on "merits"' The expressron :rr6r:*n, cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningt'ul mannerwhichsubserve;theendsofjustice-thatbeingthe life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts lt is lonwledge thdt this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in mdtters instituted in this "o^*o, Court.Butthenessdgedoesnotappeartohavepercolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy' And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: " 1- Ordinarily a litigant 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 of justice being defeated' As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cartse would be decided on merits after hearing the parties'

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean thdt a pedantic approach should be made Why not every hour's ' (1987) 2 scc l07 8 delay, every seconcl,s detay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. Wen substantia! justice and tuchnical considerations are pitted against each orher, deserves to be preferred fo, *")io"!r,*t::r;':: "i:::"; have vested right in injustice being done because o1t a non_ deliberate delay.

5. There is deliberately, no presumption that delay is occasioned or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fdes. A litigant does not stancl to benefit by resorting to delay. lnfact he runs a serious risk.,, 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected. not on account of its potuer to legalize injustice on techntcal ground.s but because it is , capable of remouing injustice and- is expected to d.o so. Making a justice_oientecl approach from fhis perspectiue, there tuas sufficient cause for contloning the delay in the institution of the appeal..... (emphasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court cannot adopt an inflexible has clearly held that Courts approach while dea.ling with applications to condone delay, more so when the delay has been expiained 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 9 Hon'lole 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.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the Consumer kgal 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, miscellaleous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SUJOY PAUL, J NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

05.o9.2024 Prv )L