1. The Branch Manager v. Srivini Anand Bhaskar Naidu

Mr. Manav Gecil Thomas, learned couosel appearing [or the petitioners Mr. Akhil Ennemshetty, learncd counscl represcnting M/S. Jurislit talv LLP appearing for the respondent No. L ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Petitioner has assailed an order dated 23.1O.2O25 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad ("State Commission') in R.P.No.6O of 2025 filed by the petitioners herein. The said RP was hled under Section 47(1)(b) of The Consumer Prorecrion Act, 2Ot9 ("2019 Act") for setting aside an order dated 08.09.2025 in I.A.No.236 of 2025 in C.C.No.110 of 2025 passed by the District Consumer ) ) 2 MB,J & GPK,J wp-32889-2025 Disputes Redressal Commission-l at H1 r r rabacl ("District Commission")

2. By the order dated OB.O9 .2025, the t) j j ricl Commission clismissed I.A.No.236 of 2025 filed by the pet I on()rs for setting aside a docket order dated 07.O7.2025 in C.(l I o.1 lO of 2025 b1' which the right of the petitioners / Opposite Parties ro file a Written Version was forfeited.

3. The petitioners herein are the Op -' rsitr: Parties in C.C.No.I 10 of 2025 filed by the respondent \o. I in the Writ Petition

4. Learncd counsel appearing for the petil,i I rers submits that the Court sl-rould set aside the impugned orde' Catcd 23.1,O.2025 passed by the State Commission and irect the State Commission to accept the Written Version o' rhe' petitioners in the main Complaint Case i.e., C.C.No.110 I 20'25. Counsel submits that the petitioners do not have an i lternative remedl' against the impugned order since a second I e rision against the said order rvould not lie before the National (l )nsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ("Nationel Commission") as decided by the said Commission in Viuo Mob I t India Put' Ltd' u' q 11 MB,J & GPK,J wp 32849 2025 Smt. Mauuram Sujathat. Counsel further submits that the Writ Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to do substantia,l justice to the parties Counsel highlights the harsh consequences of foreclosing the petitioners' right to hle the Written Version with a delay of only forty-two days.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 argues on the maintainability of the Writ Petition and urges that the Writ Petition should be dismissed as it does not satisfv the threshold requirement for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. Counsel argues that there was a wilful lack of diiigence on the part of the petitioners as they chose not to appear before the District Commission within the stipulated time despite receiving notices as well as the Complaint. Counsel seeks to rely on section 13 of the Consu:ner Protection Act, 1986 (" 1986 Act") which is replicated in section 38 of the 20 19 Act to submit that the District Commission does not have any power to extend the time for filing the Written Version beyond the period of hfteen days in addition to thirty days.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the material placed on record. .\ RP.No.1879 0f 2024, dated 20.01.2025 4 t\ MB,J & GPK,J wp 32a89.-2025 7 . The challenge in the Writ Petition is ' r the order dated '23.1O.2025 passed by the State Commission ,' hich is dismissed the Revision Petition filed bv the Writ Petit r ners. Thc State Commission conhrmed tfr. ao.t"t order rlatec )7 .O7 .2025 of t:ne District Commission forfeiting the petitioners'r ght to hle Written Version to C.C.No.IlO of 2025. B A brief chronolory of events is given belor' : I t1 The incident forming the basis of the Crr Tplaint took place on 02.O5.2024. Thc Complainant lodged ar,r FIR in the I ,cal Police Station on the same dav. 111 The Complainant also filed a Complarnr refore the Reserve Bank of lr-rdia Ombudsman on 26.09.'-l 24. The Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman passed a s -rmmary order on

04.o2.2025. lV. A further notice was given to the 1,t titioners / Opposite Parties on 2O.O3.2025. The respondent No.1 filed the Complz.nt/C.C.No.110 of 2025 in the District Commission on O8.i) ;.2025. v1 Notice of the Complainant was served or the petitioners on

23.O5.2025. \ _-, q ,l 5 MB,J & GPK,J wp_32889_2025 vL1. The right of the petitioners to frle Written Version was forfeited on the 45tt' day i.e., on 07 .O7.2025. v11l IX The petitioners filed I.A.No.236 of 2025 on 19.O8.2025. The District Commission dismissed LA.No.236 of 2O2S on

08.09.2025. x. The petitioners filed a Revision Petition No.60 of 202 5 before the State Commission on 13.1O.2O25 which u,as dismissed on 23.IO.2025. xi. The petitioners hled the present Writ Petition on

28.10.2025.

9. The relevalt provisions which are applicable to the present facts are as follows: i. Section 38 (3)(a) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 requrres the District Commission, on admitting the Complaint, to refer a copy of such Complaint to the Opposite Party directing the Opposite Party to give his version of the case within thirty days or such extended period, not exceeding frfteen days, as may be granted by the District Commission. Section 38 (3)(b) provides that if the Opposite Party, on receipt of a copy of the Complaint, referred to him under Clause (a), denies or disputes the allegations contained in the Complaint or omits or fails to 6 MB,J & GPK,J Wp-32889-2025 I\ take any action to represent his case rvitt in the time given by thc District Commission, (i) the Di.; rict Commission shall proceed to settie the consumer dispL te on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the Co I plainant and the Opposite Party if the Opposite Party den i, s or disputes the allegations contained in the Complaint (,; ction 38 (3)(b)(i)), (ii) or settle the consumer dispute ex p(.t e on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the ()r mplrirlurt, *n"." the Opposite Party omits or fails to ll <e arly trction to represent his case within the time given L z the Commission (sectior-r 38 (3)(bxii)) or (iii) decide the Corr plaint on merits if the Complainant fails to appear on tlr date of hearing (section 38 (3)(c)). ii. Section 38 (5) of the 2O19 Act st pulates that no pro<:eedings complying with the proce J rre laid down in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 38 ;hall be called in question in any Court on the groun<l of brea<:h of the principles of natural justice. Section ill (7) provides that every Complaint shall be disposed of a ; expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be m a 1e to decide the Complaint u,ithin three months from tlr date of receipt of notice b)'the Opposite Party where the ( omplaint does not i I I I I l q n 7 MB,J & GPK,J Wp_32889_2025 require alalysis or testing of commodities ald within hve months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities. iii. The prouiso to section 38(7) prohibits granting of an adjournment by the District Commission unless sufhcient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Commission. The third prouiso to Section 38(7) states that where the Complaint is disposed of after the period specihed under section 38(7), the District Commission shall record the reasons for the same in writing at the time of disposing of the said Complaint.

10. The narration of the provisions is to emphasize the statutory obligation of the District Commission to dispose of Complaints, AS expeditiously as possible, without granting adjournments and within a specified time frame

11. Section 38 (3)(a) of the 2019 Act specihcally deals with the time frame contemplated for frling the Written Version (akin to a Written Statement in a Suit) by the Opposite Party. The stipulated time frame is thirty days + frfteen days. Hence, the maximum time within which an Opposite Party may file the Written Version is forty-frve days. 8 MB.J & GPK,J Wp 32889-2025 t,

12. A reading of section 38 (3)(a) of the 201! Act would shorv that thc discretion given to the District Commir; ion for extending the time period only relates to the grant of ar r itional time upto fifteen days after the first cut-off limit of thirtr lays. The rigour of the limitation period provided for hling of \y' itten Version, as stated above, harks back to section 13 (2)(a) rf The Consumer Protection Act, I 986, rvhich also provided at naximum cut-off period of thirty days + fifteen days = forty-fl't lays for filing the Written Version.

13. 'lhe preser-rt case is governed by the 2t) 9 Act since both the incident as well as the Complaint took l1ace/was frled in

202412025. The question r.r,hether the time s ipulated for friing 'of the Writtcn Vcrsion could be extended unr t r section 13 (2)(a) of'the 1986 Act was decided and settled by a ( cnstitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Neu-t India Assurartt r Compang Limited u. Hitli Multipurpose Cold Storage Priuate Lintit dz. The Supreme Court held that the 1986 Act does not in nd granting time beyond forty-five days for the Opposite Party o frle its response as the time frame has to be read as mandatorr

14. As stated above, section 38 (3)(a) of the 019 Act replicates section 13 (2)(a) of the 1986 Act. Further the very fact that ' (zozo) s scc zsz i) j I MB,J & GPK,J Wp 32889 2025 section 38 (5) of the 2019 Act prohibits the ltling of proceedtngs in a Court on the gror.rnd of breach of the principies of natural justice where the District Commission has complied with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 38 of the 20 19 Act, would reinforce the Legislative intent of treating the outer limit of forty-hve days for filing the Written Version as mandatory and finai. The other provisions referred to above including section 38 (7) and the frrst and third prouisos thereto would reinforce that the 20 19 Act intended the expeditious disposal of Consumer Complaints.

15. The inevitable picture which emerges from section 38 and the sub-sections thereunder of the 2019 Act is that an Opposite Party cannot claim a vested right to file his/her Written Version beyond the time contemplated under section 38 (3)(a) of the 2019 Act. The Opposite Party catnot a-lso approach a Court, including by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to complain of any grave or irreparable prejudice by reason of forfeiture of the right to file Written Version. The aileged unreasonableness of the action of the statutory body must be based on the particular facts of the case and whether the Opposite Party was unfairly deprived of its right to file Written IO MB,J & GPK,J wp-.32889-2025 i Version despite having a right to do so wi, I in the time limit under section 38 (3)(a)

16. In fhc present case, the docket order lated 07.07.2025, which forms the subject-matter of the im1;rr lned order of the State Commission, reflects that the Opp: ;ite Parties (writ petitioners) u.ere not represented despite r r :eiving rlotice on

23.05.2025 and that the fortv-hfth dav to fik: t re Written Version expired on 07.O7.2025. The District Com;r ssion aocordingly forferted thc right of the Opposite Parties 1: [rle their Written Version 17 . The order passed by the District Commi sion in I.A.No.236 of 2025 filed by the writ petitioners for setl.i r i aside the docket order dated 07.O7.2025 also states that the Cc nmission does not have jurisdiction or any power to accept tt c Written Version beyond the period of forty-five days. The c r ler of the District Commission dated 08.09.2O25 records that t r: notices sent from the Commission were served on the Op1r, site Parties (Writ Petitioners) on 23 .O5.2O25. The first date br hearing of the Consumer Complaint'"i,as fxed on 16.06.2011 , and the Opposite Parties failed to appear on that date. The rri tter was thereafter posted to 23.06.2025 for appearance and w - ten Version of the Opposite Parties. The thirty days statutory pc 'iod for hling of the ,/ 1) '1 11 MB,J & GPK,J Wp_32889_2025 Written Version expired on 21.06.2025 and the matter was again posted on 23 .06 .2025. The Opposite Parties however failed to appear on 23.06.2025 and the District Commission extended the period for filing of Written Version for another hfteen days and the matter was posted on 07 .O7.2O25. The Opposite Parties again failed to appear on O7.O7.2O25, i.e., the 45th day. The District Com mission accordingly forfeited the right of the Opposite Parties to file Written Version. The order records that the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel for the hrst time on L9.O8.2O25 and filed I.A.No.236 of 2025 for setting aside the docket order dated 07 .O7 .2025.

18. The contention of the petitioners/ Opposite Parties that the delay in hling the Written Version is only forty-two days and therefore the same should be condoned is without any statutory basis. Section 38(3)(a) of the 2Ol9 Act cannot be straight-jacketed only to apply to the District Commission and not to the State or National Commission. Section 3B(3)(a) mentions the District Commission since that is the first forum for admission of a compiaint. It would be against a reasonable construction to that of section 38(3)(a) is confined only to the District Commission and not to the State Commission. Such a / t2 MB,J & GPK,J wp,32889 2025 construction would also do disservice to the rlrject of the Act, namely, the quick disposal of Consumer Complr ir-rts

19. Hence, the decision in Hilli Multipurlt ':;e Cold Storage Piuate Limited (supra) holding that the Distri,' Commission has no jurisdiction to extend the time for hling t I' response to the Complaint beyond forty-firve days under l.hc 1986 Act would equally apply to the State Commission un,l :r the 2019 Act. Moreover, the Supreme Court therein held tllat the District Commission does not have the power to extetl I the time period. In the present case, the hrst decision tal<'' r bv the District Commission b1, way of the docket order dat'r I 07 .O7.2025 was confirmed by the District Commission on 08 o".2025. The State Commission only exercised its revisional por" rs. The decision cited on behalf of the petitioners is thus distir-r: rishable on facts.

20. ln Diamond Exports u. Llnited India Insur utcet Co. Ltd.3, tlne Supreme Court affirmed the condonation of tl^r delay of 100 days by the National Commission as the same hertl been decided was before the judgment in Hilli Multipurpose C c. rl Storage Priuate Limited (supra) which had been given prospe( ive effect thereto. Ricardo Constntction s Put. Ltd. u. Raui Kucki'. 'ra involved a case ... '1zoz21 + scc te9 -{+,4AN u/sc/1160/ 2024 6 I MB,J & GPK,J wp,32aa9_2025 wherein the Opposite Party was not in receipt of the Complaint. Hence, the limitation of forty-five days period therein could not be calculated from the date of receipt of the notice as was held in HiLli Multipurpose Cold Storage Priuate Limited (supra), namely, the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the Complaint by the Opposite Party would be the starting point of limitation and not mere receipt of the notice of the Complaint.

21. The decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal , rn \lodafone ldea Ltd U Suraj Maitgs involved a peculiar set of facts in light of an extraordrnary situation prevailing in the city of Kolkata on 27.08.2024 in the aftermath of an incident in the R.G. Kar Hospital, Kolkata. The State Commission, West Bengal, hence allowed the Opposite Party to Iile the Written Version with costs. Moreover, in that case, the Opposite Party had been set ex parte on 27.08.2024 despite the resolution of the iocal Bar Association requesting the Courts not to pass any adverse orders on that particular date.

22. The decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ?he Managing Director, Nath Seeds Compang Ltd. u. T.Dada Rao6 involved a condonation of delay in respect of filing an appeal \ np.tto-sc/rglRp/r B/2024, dared t8.o7.2025 t u w.p.ruo.3aoso of 2024, dated 17.o6.2o2s I ? l4 MB,J & GPK,J wp 32889-2025 before the State Commission and not in resJ:ct of hling of a Written Ve-'rsion in the original proceedings l:j-ore the District Commission

23. The clecision of the Supreme Court in Ktr r.shik Narsithbhai Patel u. M/ s. S.J.R. Pime Corporation Piuate ) lmitedT dealt with the consequence of the failure to file a \v itten Version to emphasizc that the Opposite Party would not I e disentitlcd from participating in further proceedings even il 'c Opposite Party failed to {rle its Written Version, but this tlcl not extcnd to "r',r bringing ir-r pleadings and evidence indirectll'.

24. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dtr ldy s Butlders Put. Ltd. u. Manisha Bhargauaa is wholly against l-re petitioners on facts. The Supreme Court therein agreed witll the view taken by the National Commission that there was no : landate to take a Written Statement, which was hled beyond tli stipulated period of forty-five days, on record. The Supreme C: :rt considered the Constitution Bench decision in Hilli Multipr- t nse Cold Storage Priuate Limited (supra) and reiterated that Cc -lsumer Fora have no jurisdiction or power to accept the Wtitter itatement (Written Version) beyond the period of forty-frve days' \ / ' Civil Appeal No.8176 of 2022, dated 22.07.2014 '(zo2r) : scc 6eg .l 15 MB,J & GPK,J wp,32889_2025

25. T.K. Eleuator India Put. Ltd. u. NEO Conuent Sr. Sec. School (Minoitg) e of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission involved totally different facts. The Written Version was hled by the Opposite Party on the 42"d day i.e., twelve days after the thirty day period, which was permissible under Section 38(2Xa) of the 2019 Act. The application seeking condonation of delay was however hled ninety-three days thereafter which resulted in the District Commission dismissing the application. The Delhi State Commission directed the District Commission to take the Written Statement on record since the Written Version had been filed within the statutory time frame.

26. Notably, in the present case, the petitioners/ Opposite Parties had hled their Written Version along with the condonation of delay application on 19.OA.2025 i.e., on the 87th day. Therefore, T.K. Eleuator India Put. l,ld. (supra) is of no help to the petitioners.

27. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Compang . Limited u. Ecoscape Intemational Piuate Limitedl) deals with a case where the complainant was permitted to make an amendment in his Complaint. Hence, the Opposite Party filed its Additional Written 'g MANU/et/oo6o/202s 10 MANU/CFl0068/2023 16 MB.J & GPK.J wp_3:2889 2025 Version to the amended Complaint but aftcr BI days from the date of receipt of the amended Complaint. l'h : State Commission did not take thc aclditional Written Version o - 1'e cord d ue to the delal'. Hou,cver, since the order of the Starr Commission had lreen passed before the judgment in Htlli \lull.ipurpose Cold Storage Priuate Limited (supra) (which had trc,: I given prospective cffect), the National Commission allou,ed th t Addition:rl Written Version of the Opposite Party to be taken ot record be1'ond the stipulated period of fort1,-five days subjet:r o the pavment of costs of Rs.50,000/ -.

28. Therefore, none of the cases cited bi ll e pt'titioners come to their aid in support of their prayer madt: : T the Writ Petition for setting aside the order of the State lom rnission dated

23.1O.2025

29. We further u,ish to hold that the Writ I etition also suffers from a fundamental infirmity in respect of tttr: praver for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. The Superior Court hould not exercise the powers of an Appellate Tribunal in 5 ranting a Writ of Certiorari: T.C. Basappa u. T.Nagoppatt. I r th:rt decision, the Supreme Court held with eloquence that u 1 L .e a superior Court order' which it consid e -s to be rvithout I "demolishes the ) " 1t95a1 r scc sos a) r'a) I7 MB,J & GPK,J wp_32449_202s jurisdiction or finds to be palpably erroneous, it holds back from substituting its own views for those of the inferior Tribunal while exercising supervisory jurisciiction through a Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court relied on King u. Not. Bell Liquors Ltd. tz which succinctiy expressed the view that a Writ of Certiorari may and is generally granted when a Court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Hai Vishnu Kamath u. SAed Ahmad Ishaque 13 relied on T.C. Basappa (supra) to lay down certain propositions as to when the Writ of Certiorari could be issued. The propositions therein specify cases where the Writ of Certiorari will be issued for (i) correcting errors of jurisdiction, (ii) when the Court or Tribunal acts i11egally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, e.g., without giving an opportunity to the pArties to be heard or violates the principles of natural justice, (iii) where the Court acts in excess of a supervisory jurisdiction so as to assume appellate jurisdiction and (iv) where there exists an error in the decision or determination itself when lt is manifest on the face of the proceedings.

30. Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), in fact, proceeded to hold that the Court will not review frndings of fact of the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they are found to be erroneous. The aforesaid " (rgzz) z nc rza (pc) " 1r95ay 2 scc 88t I 18 MB,.I & GPK,J wp_32889-2025 cases were cliscussed by the Supreme Court .l Ccrrtral Councii for Research in Aguruedic Sciences u. Bikartart. I asl't .

31. Considering the settled legal princip :s zts to cases werrranting the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarj . i(/e :rre of the hrm vreu, tha[ the Writ Petition a]so deserves to lt: disrnissr:d on the ground ol maintainabilitv. The State Comnl s sion acttld "vithin its undoubted jurisdiction in passing th r imllugned order rcjectir-rg t[-re Revision Petition filed by the pet 1 oners against the clocket orcler of the District Commission datrtl 07 .O7 .2025. This rs not a case u,here the petitioners have quest oncd the order as being without or in excess of jurisdiction. 1'1 e petitioners also cannot invite the Writ Court to review the fact'-r ll controversy in a 'matter for a Writ of Certiorari. In essence, .'e do not find any glound to interfere with or set aside the irnp tgned ordcr dated '23.1O.2025.

32. We must also statc that the petitiont I s' contentions, as expressed by counsel, were premised on an I rm]. veteran being unfairly deprived of a valuable right. The a<:1 t al facts are in fact the very opposite. The Army veteran is tl-r,: Complainant who approached the District Commission against Le petitioners. The petitioners idled ancl took their time and failt r to fiie the Written " lzozz) rc scc aaz I .t t9 MB,J & GPK,J .Wp.32a89 2025 Version despite ample opportunity having been given to them Therefore, the sympathy of the Court is rvith the Complainant/Respondent No.1 who is a retired Senior Cit2en. The Court takes note of the attempt to divert the Court's sympathy on an erroneous factual premise

33. The Writ Petition is accordingly held to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed also on the ground of maintainabilitv. We accordingly dismiss W.P.No.32889 of 2025 along rvith all connected appiications. There shall be no order as to costs To, S /.K. BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Manav Gecil Thomas' Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to M/S Jurislit Law LLP, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies TJ u. \+ HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 CI l 0 ORDER WP.No.32889 of 2025 ==-- ( rl' 14 r'i .c o() )- 1/ Jr{ 2[28 * oa--.\, . ).' .,/. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

6.ofea Yk il6)b