Allowed

Smt. v.Kamala, v. The Registrar

Telangana HC18 Mar 2015WP/26464/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing petitioners to pay compensation under confirmed proceedings. The High Court set aside the compensation direction and directed the State Commission to dispose of the execution petition in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing payment of compensation set aside; State Commission directed to dispose of execution petition in accordance with law.

Smt. v.Kamala, Vs The Registrar — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

And

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTH

¶4

Writ Petition No.26464 of 2014

¶5

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

The order under challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in E.A.I.ANos.1661, 1662, 1663, 1674 and 1675 of 2014 in E.A.No.3 of 2009 dated 04.09.2004. By the said order, the State Commission, while recording the no objection of the vacate stay petitioner for recalling of the Non Bailable Warrants, however directed the petitioners herein to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/-, in view of the fact that its earlier order had been confirmed by the National Commission.

¶7

While parties allege misstatement of facts in the affidavits filed before this Court, it is wholly unnecessary for us to now examine these matters, as both Sri B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.V.Babji, GPA for the 2^nd respondent, submit that, instead of keeping the writ petition pending on the file of this Court, it would suffice if the order, under challenge in this writ petition, is set aside; and the State Commission is permitted to proceed with the E.A. in accordance with law.

¶8

As the petitioners have now entered appearance through counsel before the State Commission, ends of justice would be met if the impugned order directing them to pay compensation is set aside, and the State Commission is directed to dispose of the Execution Petition in accordance with law. The amount of Rs.30,000/-, which the petitioners have deposited before the State Commission pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, shall remain with the State Commission till the Execution Petition is disposed of in accordance with law.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶11

__________________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 18^th March 2015. JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶12

Writ Petition No.26464 of 2014

¶13

Date: 18.03.2015

¶14

JSU

Smt. v.Kamala, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v.Kamala, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Anakapally Divisional Postal Ed Employees Cooperative Vs The Union of India, rep by Secretary and Director-

The Anakapalle Division Postal Employees Cooperative Vs The Union of India represented by the Secretary and

Kothapalli Anjaneyulu Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Imran Khan, Vs The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Transport

Tatineni Koteswara Rao, Vs Union of India, Through its Secretary

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Vs Nagaraiu. S/0. Late Rainaswamy. Retired Messenger