Dismissed

R.Rajasubramanian, v. Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Credit Society

Telangana HC1 Sept 2016WP/19241/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction and non-payment under a consumer forum order. The Court followed a prior Appeal ruling barring writ jurisdiction when finality attached and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the consumer forum for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach the respondent forum (No. 2) for enforcement.

R.Rajasubramanian, Vs Telegraph Traffic Employees… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.19241 of 2016

¶4

Date:01.9.2016

¶5

Between : R.Rajasubramanian, S/o B.Ramadurai Manian

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

And: Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Hyderabad and six others. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K.Mamata Choudary Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. K.Veerabhadra Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7: Mr. B.Devanand

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

2 CVNR, J & GSP, J W.P.No.19241 of 2011 Dt:01.9.2016

¶11

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in giving effect to the order of respondent No.2-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad and in not paying amount to the petitioner as per the order, dated 15.02.2011 in C.C.No.339 of 2010 of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

A perusal of the record shows that a Writ Petition, which is similar to the present Writ Petition, filed by one M.Gangadhara Rao and others was allowed by a learned single Judge. However, the order in the said Writ Petition was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment, dated 21.11.2014, in Writ Appeal No.1431 of 2014. While allowing the said Writ Appeal, the Division Bench held that when the orders passed by respondent No.2 have reached finality, the writ petitioners are entitled to invoke the effective alternative remedy of seeking enforcement of the said orders and a writ Court cannot entertain the Writ Petitions of that nature.

¶14

At the hearing, it is not disputed that the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are identical to that raised in Writ Appeal No.1431 of 2014. Therefore, following the judgment in the afore-mentioned Writ Appeal, this Writ Petition is dismissed,

¶15

3 CVNR, J & GSP, J W.P.No.19241 of 2011 Dt:01.9.2016

¶16

however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 seeking enforcement of the order passed by it.

¶17

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order,

¶18

dated 11.7.2011 in WPMP.No.23236 of 2011 is vacated and WPMP.No.23236 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶20

______________________
JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
01 st September 2016
DR

R.Rajasubramanian, v. Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Credit Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajasubramanian, v. Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-operative Credit Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tubati Veeraiah, Vs Ganga Ravi Kumar

Bukya Ramachander Naik, Vs Bhukya Bharathi

M/s Omkara Industries Vs Union of India/The Government of India

K. Vijayasimha Reddy, Vs The Bank of India

Sri Paul Ravia Kumar Boosi, Vs Mediation and Arbitration Centre

Muggala Satya Vishala Vs Muggala Srinivasa Rao