Allowed

K.V.K. Ramabrahmam, v. Gundu Appa Rao

Telangana HC27 Oct 2014WP/22859/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition filed under Article 226. The Court set aside the State Commission's order dismissing the appeal because the counsel's name was omitted from the cause list, preventing proper notice of the hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the appeal was set aside. The First Appeal was restored to the file of the State Commission to be disposed of within six weeks.

K.V.K. Ramabrahmam, Vs Gundu Appa Rao — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22859 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the Order, dated 30.04.2013, in F.A.No.639 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’), whereunder and whereby, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the counsel for the appellant failed to appear before it, as contrary to the docket order, dated 02.04.2013, in F.A.I.A.No.753 of 2013 in F.A.No.639 of 2012 and set aside the same and consequently restore the F.A.No.639 of 2012 to the file of the State Commission and direct it to dispose of the appeal on merits.

¶5

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the matter was directed to be listed on 22.04.2013 by an order, dated 02.04.2013, thereafter, an application was moved requesting the State commission to advance the matter and pass order; that the matter has been advanced to 02.04.2013 and after passing an interim order, it was further directed to be listed on 06.06.2013, but, the same was listed on 30.04.2013 instead of 06.06.2013; that when the matter was listed on 30.04.2013, the name of the counsel, who appeared for the petitioner/appellant before the State Commission was not printed, therefore, counsel for the petitioner did not notice the same and there was no representation; that the State Commission without considering the same, dismissed the appeal and hence he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner knows about the date of adjournment and listing of the matter on 30.04.2013, but intentionally did not attend the Court and therefore, the State Commission rightly dismissed the same and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶7

4. It is not in dispute that the name of the counsel for the petitioner/appellant before the State Commission has not been printed in the cause list, dated 30.04.2013. Therefore, when the counsel’s name is not printed, there could not

¶8

be any representation on behalf of the appellant. Precisely that was happened in this case. Sufficient cause is shown by the appellant for his absence on 30.04.2013. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. The First Appeal is restored to file and the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad is requested to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to part-heard, old and identified cases. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶11

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶12

Date:27.10.2014 INL

K.V.K. Ramabrahmam, v. Gundu Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V.K. Ramabrahmam, v. Gundu Appa Rao

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

Kakula Aruna Jyothi Vs State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager/ Authorized

Sri.S.Srinivas Reddy, Vs Union of India

Doddi Simhachalam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.S.D.M.B.G.Tilak Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

M/s M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited Vs M/S. Surendra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Tadikonda Sundara Ramaiah, Vs Bank of India