This order dismisses a writ petition challenging Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for non-prosecution after one party failed to appear or file representations in court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH &
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
W.P.No. 9876 of 2000
DATE: 21.12.2015
Between:
M/s. Chamundeswari Builders and two others .. Petitioners And
The Union of India and another .. Respondents
O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“…to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and consequently declare the proceedings in P.P.No. 58 of 1999 in C.D.No. 1324 of 1994 on the file of the District Forum, Hyderabad-II as void, abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law and pass….”
Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have filed W.P.M.P.No.12585 of 2000 seeking stay of all further proceedings in P.P.No. 58 of 1999 in C.D.No. 1324 of 1994 on the file of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad including appearance of the petitioners, and this Court, by order dated 26.06.2000, while admitting the writ petition, granted stay of arrest and allowed other proceedings for recovery to go on.
When this matter is taken up for hearing, nobody has appeared nor is made any representation on behalf of the petitioners, as such, it seems that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter.
Sri P.Rama Krishna, Advocate, representing Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent,
is present.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_________________
G. CHANDRAIAH, J 21.12.2015
______________________ bcj U. DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
M/s. Chamundeswari Builders and two others
The Union of India
G. Chandraiah
U. Durga Prasad Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
