The trilanaging Director v. 'l . S.Sunil

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.34O37 OF 2o24 ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sn Justice Abhinan() Kurnar Strutih) 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 05.O9.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14O27 of 2024 arrd, the said Wrir petition was allowed by setting aside the order, dated Og.O4.2O24 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Reclressal 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. l4O2Z of I I i .- \.'-,"r1 \ \ 2 2024, and that the order, dated OS.O4.2O24 passed 1n FA.IA.Nos. 1883 and 1884 of 2023 in F.A.No.T42 of 2023 by tine State Commission is liable to be set aside, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.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

4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the order, dated O8.O4.2O24 passed in FA.IA.Nos.1883 and 1884 of 2023 in F.A.No.742 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// SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN S STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad.

1. The Registrar, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2. OneCC to Ms. MAHADEVANYARAMBHATLA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies (Along with a order copy of the order dated 05.09.2024. in W.P.No. 14O27 of 2024) '.: '. ' ,: .!?,r':i |I I I '\1 HIGH COURT DATED: 1 7 10612025 ./( 1'.-t i :,r 11 1 llE s -.q t6. o^ 1{tlJEm

7., + a * .2 ORDER WP.No.34037 o12024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $fu'r*6: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.14027 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justtce Nqmauarapu Rajeshutar Rao) This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: *--....... to issue v,rit, order direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in relating to Order passed in F.A.I.A.No.lg79 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 filed against ttte Orders of the District Consume; Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No.9 of 20lg and set aside thc 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 201g, the petitioner preferred an appea.l in F,A.(Sr).N o.Z40 of 2023. Initially, the appeal we.s frled 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 -fi1ed by the then counsel. Accordingly, the new counsel took the return of the bundtes and, having noted the objections 2 raised by the ofhce' complied with the said objections and the frle with an application to condone the delay in the re-presentation of the appeal indicating the re-submitted aforesaid reasons'

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further the application to condone submitted that notqrithstanding delay. However' in similar matters' the Telalgana State has been condoning the delay in representing the appeals by the very same petitioner' and despite bringing such a facl to the notice of the State Commission' without considering the same' the I'As' were dismissed' the appeal was also rejected' by the Commission Consequently' imPugned order dated O8'O4'2O24' I'earnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner further 4. 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 rnatter is entrusted' Such inad'vertent delays in the are caused due to the mixing-up of f,rles and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's office ' Thus' tkrere is a justihcation for condoning the delay in re- re-presentations 3 presentation of the appeal when there is a bonahde mistake on the part of the advocate or his ofhce, including 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 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 view that in the instant case, the State Commission dismissed F.A.I.A.Nos. 1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.74O of 2023 on 08.04.2024 by observing as follows:- "8. The afrdavit and petttion in 1.A.1879/2023 was fted by M/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal of the office goes to show that it was fited 4 on 01.08.2022, but there is no IOTA of evidence to show that it was filed on 26.07.2022 as claimed by the petitioner. The cause for delay of 425 days is the mtsplacement of the bundle. It is not mentioned, where it was misplaced i.e. either in the office of Adyocate or in the ffice of Petitioner itsel.)f. It is also categorically mentioned that the counsel has given no objection for procuring the files, it took time, therefore, there is a delay If lhe same is coruect, in all likelihood, M/s Rakesh Sanghi, might have given the bundle to the petitioner etther on 26.07.2022 or on 01.08-2022 or even before 26.07.2022. There is no clarity on this aspect. It is not mentioned from which date onwards the delay of425 days was counted because, there is no endorsement of the ffice that on what date the petition was returned for comptiance. The pelitioner has counted the delay from 15.06.2022, but the date of its return 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 mentioned the dates of his choice as he thinks fit, but, the record is otherwise.

9. The bundle goes to show that on 01.08.2022, the petition was represented bltt, it wds again returned on 05-09.2022 with an objection that five more copies ofdelay petitions are required to be Jited. On t6.11.2023, the FA was again represented by complying with objection of furnishing four more copies of the petition." "11. h is the arguments of petitioner counsel that 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 in the same lines. lle are of the view that the above argument cannot be appreciated for the 5 two reasons, viz.:- (i) the misplacement of bundte and again tracing out the same is dfficult to assess. (ii) If a persons, memory once lost, it is dfficult to assess when it will again surfoce in the mind. It may be few days, months and years. However, if once the bundle ts traced out, again forgetting the same for another 440+ days is dfficutt to believe. So, we are of the view that there are no bonafides in the case on hand, more so, when two petitions are filed with the detay of 400 days. In these circumstdnces, 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 petitions are fled without bonafides

12. In the result, the both the petitions in IA 1879/2023 and 1880/2023 are dismtssed 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 load of work, as he could not pay proper attention to the batch of appeals frled by him. The new counsel attended to 6 all such cases hled by the earlier counsel. The new counsel, after noting the objections raised by the offrce, .j complied with the same and resubmitted the hle 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 harie 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 mista-ke committed bv 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 a_llowed I.A.Nos.l879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023, bttt the State Commissioner erred in dismissing I.A.Nos. 1879 of 2023 and 188O of2023.

8. It is relevant to refer to the categorical observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in COLLDCTOR, 7 LAND ACQUISITION' ANANTI'IAG AND ANOTHER Vs. MsI.KATIJI 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 deluy by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Ltmitation Act of 1963 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 in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends ofjusttce - that being the liJb-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge. tfut this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. 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 litigant does not stand to benefit by lodgtng 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 lhdt can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. j. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's '1ts8z; z scc toz 8 dela\', svg, second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical consideralions are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannol claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay * occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fdes. A litigant does not stqnd to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. "

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its pouter to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of remouing injustice and is expecled to do so. Making a lustice oiented approach from this perspediue, there tuas suffictent cause for condoning the delag in the institution of the appeal.....". (emphasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has cleariy 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 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 O8.O4'2O24 passed F.A.I.A.Nos.1879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023 in F.A.(Sr.).No.740 of 2023, subject to the petitioner paying 1n costs of Rs.2,OO0/- (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 o5.o9.2024 Prv