High Court · 2025

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court ma-y oe preaseJ to issue writ order Direction particurarry in the nature or wit or cerfiorlri;ir.g f* lfe r.9T(s in retating to Order passed in F.A.I.A. No. 1885 of 2023 and F.Alt.A. No. 1886 of 2o23 in F.A- SR 743 of zo23 on the fire of 3rd Respondent fired against the orders of the District consumer Disputes Redressar commission, Aoiraold in C.C.No- 169/2018 and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: -- Counsel for the Respondent No.3: cp FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE ABHINAND I{{.IMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA W'RIT PETITION No.34O53 OF 2024 ORDER: (l>er I'Ion'ble Si Justi&. Abliao]rtd Kumar Shauili) When the matteristaken up for hearing, Iearned counsei appearing for ttre petitioncr lrad informed the Court that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely 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 rvas allowed by setting asicle the order, daierl OA'O4'2O24 passed by the 'felangana State Consumer Dispules Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, 'the SLate Commission')' Follon ing the albresaid order, the present Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. I

2. [rarned Government Pleader appearing for respondenl No.3 did not dispute the said fact-

3. [n view o[ the said submissions, this Court is o[ the considered vierl, that the present Writ Petition also deserves to be allou,ed follolving the aforesaid order, dated O5.O9 .2024 ' passed by the Divisiorr Rcrrch o[ this Court in W.]'.No.I4O27 ol 2 2024, and that the order, dated OS.O4.2O24 passed FA.IA.Nos. 1885 and 1886 of 2Cl23 in F.A.No.743 of 2O23 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 thousald 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 O8-O4.2O24 passed in FA.IA.Nos.l8g5 and lga6 of 2023 in F.A.No.743 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 COPY// /.K,BHAVANI SWAMY ISTANT REGISTRAR I 'l SECTION OFFICER The Registrar, Telangana State Consurner Oispr\e Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. IviAHADEV ANYARAI\iiBHATLA Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP for Civi! SLroplies, High Couft for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD Copies Redressal Commission, \ To, 1 3 4 KKS GJP (Along with the copy of the order^dated 05.09.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.p.N6. 14O2t ot 2024) w HIGH COURT DATED:171CI612025 ORDER WP.No.34O53 of 2024 c{ (i 2 5 _c[P 20ffi I .,/ ,.. i. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \Q-t r \' ,'--\ AF( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.1 4O27 of 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice Namauarapu Rajeshu.tar Rao) o......-.- This writ petition is fited seeking the following relief: to issue writ, order direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Cerliorari calling for the records in relating to Order passetl in F.A.I.A.No. tg79 oJ 2023 and F.A.I.A.No.t880 of 2023 in F.A.(SR).740 of 2023 on the file of 4'h respondent filed ogainst the Orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressnl Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No.9 of 20lg ancl set asicle the same,,. 2' learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Commission, Adilabad, in C.C.No.9 of 2olg, the petitioner preferred an appeal in F.A.(Sr).N o.z4o of 2023. Initially, the appear was fired 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 raise<i by tLre office, complied with the said objections and re-submittedthefrlewithanapplicationtocondonethe delay in the re-presentation of the appeal indicating the aforesaid reasons.

3. l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submittedthrrtnotwithstandingtheapplicationtocondone delay. However, in similar matters' the Telangana State Commissionhasbeencondoningthedelayinrepresenting 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 impugned order dated Oa'O4'2O24'

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submittedthatitiscommonknowledgethatifthereisany 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-presentationsarecausedduetothemixing-upollrles and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's offrce ' Thus' there is a justification for condoning the delay in re- 3 presentation of the appear when there is a bonafide mistake on the part of the advocate or his office, including the clerk. If such deray is not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner, ald there would be no justihcation 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 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.)No.Z4O 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. tB8O of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.74O of 2023 on Og.04.2024 by observing as follows :- "8. The afidavit and petirion in I.A.tg79/2023 was fited by M/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal of the office goes to show that it u,as filed 4 on 01.08.2022, bti there is no IOTA of evidence to show that it was fiIed on 26-07.2022 as claimed by the petitioner' The cause for delay of425 days is the misplacemeit of the bundle' It is not mentioned, where it was mispldced i'e-'either in the ffice of Advocate or in the office of Petitioner itself' It is also catcgori(:ally mentioned that the counsel has given no obiection for procttring the fites, it took time, therefore' there is a delay It- the samt is correct, in all tiketihood' M/s Rakesh Sanghi' might have gtren the bundle to the petitioner either on 26 07 2022 or on 0l 08.2()22 or even before 26 07'2022' There is no cldrity on this aspect. lt is not mentioned from which date onwards the delav ol 125 days was counted because' there is no entlorsement of'thc t.flice that on what date the petition rur"s returned fbr Tlte petitioner has counted the delay front but the date of its return is mentioned as t5 06.2022 26.07.2022 But, as per the oJfice sedl' the FA was represented on t) t .08.2t)22. It soes to show that the petitioner mentioned the dates oi his choice as he thinks fit, but, the record is othenrise compliance

9. Tltc .lttutt!!e goes to slnw that on 0t'08'2022' the petition was reprt'scttled bLLt, it was again returned on 05'09'2022 with an objection that .five morc copies of delay pelitions are requircd to be jilcd On t6-1t.2023, the FA was again represenrcd bv conrp\ing with objection of furnishing four more copies of the pctitiott " "tl. it is the arguments of petitioner counsel that this Contmission has already condoned some of the petitions of the same perilioncr in representing the appeal as such' lhese petitions are also shall be allowed in the same lines We are of tlte i'ii',,i thdt tlie abate argumen! cannot be eppreciated fur tlrc 5 two reasons, viz.:_ (i) the misplacement of bundle and agairt trdcing out the same is dfficult lo as.ress. (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, i,f once the bundle is traced out, again forgetting the same for another 440+ days is dfficult to believe. So, we are oJ. the view that there are no bonafides in the case on hand, more so, when two petitions are fled with the delay of 400 davs. In these circ-umstances, this Commission condoning thc delay in other petitions, where one petition is with major delay and another is with few days deray cannot be taken ds yardstick to allow the present petitions- The substantial rights acoaed to the Rl/Complainant will be at stake, when the petitions are filed without bonafides.

12. In the result, the both the petitions in IA tg79/2023 and 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 hled for condonation of delay in representing the appeals were a llowed, 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 heauy load of work, as he could not pay proper attention to the batch of appeals fiIed by him. The new counser attended to 6 a1l such counsel, cases frled b)' th" earlier counsel' The new after noting the objections raised by ttre office' with the same and resubmitted the frle with complied 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 mispiaced' It is needless to state that had it really been known to the petitioner where it was misplaced' the delay woulcl 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 ofltct:. 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' 188O of 2023' bttt the State Commissionererredindismissingl'A.Nos'1879of2023 and 1880 of2023. [t is relevant to refer to the categorical observations of B. the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in COLLECTOR' 7 I.AND ACQI/ISITION, ANANTNAG AND AN0THER 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 conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indtan Limttation Act of t963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause " employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law tn a meaningt'ul manner which subserves the ends ofjustice - that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution ofcourts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appea.r to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy_ And such a lberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: " l. 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 cdn happen is that a cause *,ould be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained " does not mean thal a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour,s ' 1re8z; z scc roz 8 delay, every second's detay? The doctine must be dpt'lied in a rational common sense prdgmalic mdnnet

4. l{hen substantidl justice and technical considerations are pitted (tgainst each other, cause of substantial justice desenes to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have ye.sted right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay-

5. There is no presumption that delay is occostoned deliberatel-v, or on account of culpable negligence, or on accotmt o.f mala.fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resortinq to dela-v. ln.[act hc runs a serious risk. "

6. lt must be grasped thot judiciory is respected not on account of its pouter to Legalize injustice on technicol grounds but because it is capable of remouing injustice and is expected to do so. Makingr a justice-oiented approach from this perspectit'e, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeaL . . . . ". (emphasis supplieci) g. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'brle Apex Court has clearly held that Courts cannot adopt an inflexibie approach \ /hile dealing with applications to condone delay, more so when the delay has been explained with a reasonable rlause and justihcation. Therefore, in view of the above stLbmissions made by the learned collnsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judgment of the 9 Honble Apex Court, this Court deems it appropnate 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 O9.O4.2O24 passed in F.A.LA.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 I-egal 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

05.o9.2024 Prv