The Managing Director' Nath Seeds Company Ltd v. 1. G.Shankar

HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.28522 OF 2024 ORDER : (Per Hon'ble, Si Juslice Abhinond Kumar Shaui,ti) 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 squarely 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 said Writ Petition n as allowed by setting aside the order, dated O8.O4 .2024 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. l,earned 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 O5.O9.2O24' passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 14027 of ) 1 2024, and that the order, dated OB.O4.2O2'+ passed in FA.lA.Nos.l891 and 1892 of 2023 in F.A.No.74(r of 2023 by the State Commission is liable to be set aside, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs. !l , O00 / - (Rupees two thousand only) before the State Com-mi ssion, u'ithin a period of tu,o (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated O8.O4.2024 passed in FA.IA.Nos.1891 and 1892 of 2023 in F.A.No.746 of 2023 by the State Commission is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendin g in this Writ Petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SN/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG A-SSISTEUT REGISTRAR secrbforrrcen To, I 2 J The Registrar. Telangana State Consumer Disputes' Redressal Commission' Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP fcr Civil Supplies' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies KKS GJP \q' HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 ORDER WP.No.28522 of 2024 - -: ,/'i'- - ::-_ -. :i l;ii--\t c'" .\ O9SIP2E ,/ :-: ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tcoP(t4 \+ lFIa' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO 1VRIT PETITION No.14O27 of 2o24 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice Namauorapu Rajeshwar Rao) This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliet

4......... to issue writ, order direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certtorari calling for the records in reldting to Order passed in F.A.1.A.No.1879 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 agtinst the Orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad in C.C.No.9 of 2018 and set aside 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 2O\8, the petitioner preferred an appeal in F.A.(Sr).No.74O of 2023.Inrtially, the appeal was liled through the earlier counsel. Due to his workload, the earlier counsel could not pay proper attention to the batches of appeals frled 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 Z raised by the oflice, complied with the said objections and re-submitted the file with an application to condone the delay in the re-presentation of the appeal 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 1'elangana State Commission has been condoning the delay in representing the appeals by the very same petitioner, trnd despite bringing such a fact to the notice of the State Commission, without considering the same, the I.As. we re dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also reje,;ted by the impugned order dated 08.04.2024

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petilioner further submitted that it is common knowledge that if there is any delay in the re-presentation of the appeals, r-rormally, the deiay occurs in the office of the Advocate ro whom the matter is entrusted. Such inadvertent dt:lays in the re-presentations are caused due to the mixing-up of files and mistakes of the clerks in the advocate's office. Thus, there is a justification for condoning the delay ln re- 3 presentation of the appeal when there is a bonaf,rde 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 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 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 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.O4.2024 by observing AS follows:- "8. The affdavit and petition in 1.A.1879/2023 was filed by M/s R.K.Sanghi. The seal of the ofice goes to show that it was fled 4 ',1;r,,' on 01.08.2022, bfi there is no IOTA of evidence t) .\how that it was fled on 26.07.2022 as claimed by the petitioticr. The cause .for delay of 425 days is the mtsplacement of the ht,ndle. It is not mentioned, where it was misplaced i.e. either n tlrc of.fice of Adyocale or in the ffice of Petitioner itscl,l It r also categorically mentioned lhat the counscl has givu, no objection .for procuring thc Jiles, it took time, therefore, therL i.s a delay ( the same is correct, in all likelthood, M/s Rakesh .\tutghi, night have gi.''en tlte bundle to the petitioner either on .'6 t)7.2022 or on 01.08.2022 or even before 26.07.2022. Tlrcrc is no clority on this aspect. It is not mentioned from which dan ortwards the delay of425 days was counted because, therc is no cndorsement of the oflice that on h'hat date the petitiotl \,t'u:; rclurned for compliance. The petttioner has counted thc delatt from 15.06.2022, but the date of its return is nrctrtiotu'd tts 26.07.2022. But, as per the oLfice seal, the I;A uas rcpresented on 01.08.2022. It goes to show that the petitioner ttretLlioned the dates oJ his choice as he thinks fit, but, the record i: othent ise.

9. The bundle goes to shoy) that on 01.08.2022, tfu petilion was represented but, it was again returned on 05.09 l()22 \ith an objection that five more copies of delay petitions ar c required to be f led. On 16.1 1.2023, the FA was again rc,'trcsented by complying with objection of furnishing four more copies of the petitiotl." " I 1. h is the arguments of petitioner cowtsal that lhis Commission has already condoned some of the pctitions ol the sdme petitioner in representtng the appeal as such, these petitions are also shall be allowed in the same lin,'s. We are of the view that lhe above argument cannot be appreLiated lbr the 5 two reasons, viz.:- (i) the misplacement of bundle and again tracing out the same is dfficult to assess. (ii) If a persons' memory once lost, it is difficult to assess when it will agatn surface in the mind. It may be few days, months and years. However, if once the bundle is traced oul' again forgetting the same for another 440+ days is dfficult to believe. So, we are of the view that there are no bonafides in the case on hand, more so, when two petitions are fled with the delay of 400 days In these circumstdnces, this Commission condoning the delay itt other petitions, where one petition is w'tth major delay and another is v,ith few days delay cannol be laken as yardstick to allow the present petilions. The substantial rights accnted to the Rl/Complainant will be at stake, when the petitions are filed without bonafdes.

12. In the result, the both the petitions in IA 1879/2023 and 1880/2023 are dismissed without costs. Consequently, the appeal also stdnds 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 Ioad of work, as he could not pay proper attention to the batch of appeals filed by him. The new counsel attended to 6 all such cases filed by the earlier couns(1l. The new counsel, after noting the objections raised bt, 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 tbservation of the State Commissioner was that it was n ot mentioned where it was misplaced. It is needless to state that had it really been known to the petitioner where it u as misplaced, the delay would not have been occurred. A party does not stand to gain anlhing 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 ofhce. As such, the Commissioner rrught to have placed reliance on the submission made b., the learned counsel for the petitioner and ought to have allowed I.A.Nos.l879 of 2023 and 1880 of 2023, ltt-tt the State Commissioner erred in dismissing I.A.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 LlLND ACQIIISITION, ANANTNAG AND ANOTITER Vs. MSI.IATIJI AND OTHERST, wherein the principles of condoning delay have been dealt with, ald it was held as follows :-

3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacling Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial it$tice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "suficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends ofjustice - lhat being the li,fe-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. lt is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But lhe message does not appear to have percolated down lo 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 lodging an appeal lale.

2. Rejtsing to condone delay can result in d 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 would be dectded on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay musl be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's ' (1987) 2 scc loz 8 ",'i. .:'i. delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. ll/hcn substantial justice and technical considerctions are pitted dgdinst each other, cause of substantitl justice descryes to be preferred for the other side cannot claint to lnve t'csted right in injustice being done becausc ol a non- tlclibtrute dela; . -i. 'I'hcre is no presumption that delay is cccttsioncd delibcrately, or on account of culpable negliS;ence, or on accounl o.f mala fdes. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorling lo delay. ln.fact he runs a serious risk. '

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account oJ its pouer to legoliz,e injustice on ter:hn.ical ground.s but because it is capable of remouing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a lustice-oriented approcch frcm this perspectiue, there uas sufficient couse for condoning the delay [n the institution of the oppeal.....". (emphasis supplied)

9. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'blt: Apex Court 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 justihcation. Therefore, in view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid judlgment 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.O4.2024 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 tegal 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, sha,ll stand closed SUJOY PAUL, J NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

05.o9.2024 Prv