Dismissed

B.Rajithavilas, v. The President

Telangana HC15 Apr 2009WP/7560/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of an Educational Society challenging non-bailable warrants issued for default in paying consumer forum decrees, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that since the orders were not impugned and the complainants were not respondents, extraordinary jurisdiction could not be exercised to grant more time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was passed.

B.Rajithavilas, Vs The President — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH &

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.7560 of 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 B.Rajithavilas, S/o. Late B.Rukmaiah,

¶9

S.P.Sampathys Educational Soceity, 153, Motinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 B.Vijayavilas, W/o. B.Rajithavilas, S.P.Sampathys Educational Soceity, 153, Motinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

¶11

..... PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The President, District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy,

¶14

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary (Home),

¶15

Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶16

4 The S.H.O. P.S., Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus direct the 1st respondent to grant the petitioners reasonable time for paying the decreed amounts in view of the circumstances stated in the affidavit and consequently direct the 1st respondent to recall the NBW's against the petitioners and pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}

¶23

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.7560 of 2009

¶25

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶26

The petitioners seek issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sangareddy to grant reasonable time for payment of the decreed amount, recalling the non-bailable warrants issued against them.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioners that the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sangareddy passed orders in the complaints filed by various persons against the S.P.Sampathys Educational Society, represented by its Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The petitioners are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the said S.P.Sampathys Educational Society, Motinagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that the said Educational Society was running schools at Sangareddy and the said Society availed loans from various banks and financial institutions for providing infrastructure, but the loans could not be repaid. The said society also collected advances from parents of the students for the said purpose. Therefore, various persons to whom amounts were due and payable filed complaints before the District Forum and the District Forum passed various orders in favour of the complainants. For non-payment of the amounts covered by the orders of the District Forum, non-bailable warrants were issued.

¶28

A perusal of the material papers shows that various Consumer Disputes were filed against S.P.Sampathys Educational Society. The complainants before the District Forum are not parties to this writ petition. The District Consumer Forum passed various orders in various Consumer Disputes. It is stated that certain amounts have also been paid under the said orders. If the orders have not been complied with, the only recourse open to the complainants is to take steps for enforcement of the said orders either under Sec.25 or seek penalization under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When the orders have become final, consequential proceedings will have to follow. In this writ petition which is filed without questioning the said orders passed by the District Consumer Forum and without making the complainants party respondents to the writ petition, though they are proper and necessary parties, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction to grant reasonable time for payment of the decretal amount as prayed for by the petitinoers.

¶29

The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶30

_____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ____________________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶31

Dated: 15.04.2009 Dsr

.... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The President, District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy,

¶37

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary (Home),

¶38

Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶39

3 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶40

4 The S.H.O. P.S., Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶41

5 2. 2CCs to

¶42

6. 2CD copies

B.Rajithavilas, v. The President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rajithavilas, v. The President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Satyanarayana, Vs Bank of Baroda

S. Rammohan, Vs Election Commissioner of INdia

M/S.Perfect Roofer N.Shelterer P.LTDAND5 Vs Canara Bank Hyd and 2 Others

T. Suresh Babu Vs Election Commission of India

Smt.K.Girija Vs The Chief Manager and Authorised Officer

All India Christian Council, Vs The District Election Officer and Collector