Dismissed

M/s Hilton Constructions Builders and Developers v. The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and 2 Others

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023WP/22598/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the State Consumer Commission. The court held that since the Supreme Court had dismissed the special leave petition on technical grounds regarding limitation and lack of merit, the High Court could not entertain the writ petition under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim stay order dated 17.12.2020 was vacated.

M/s Hilton Constructions Builders and Developers Vs… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY^{OF AUGUST}

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY}

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶9

l.A.No. 1 ot 2021

¶10

IN/AND

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO: 22598 OF 2020

¶12

Between

¶13

lr4/s Hilton Constructions Builders and^{Developers, Rep by ManagingPartner} M.A.Nayeem, S/o M.A.Raheem, Aged^{about40 years,Occ Architect.Having} office it Premises No. 1-3-1029,^{-Hilton s lcon, 4th Floor' Opp CourtYard} Marriott, Lower Tank Bund,^Hyderabad.

¶14

..,PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

The Telangana state consumer^{Disputes RedressalcommissionKhairtabad,} Hyderabad.

¶17

2 The District Consumer Forum-lll^{Hyderabad, Hyderabad}

¶18

Dr. Abrar Ul Haq Qureshi, S/o^{Abdul Haq Qureshi,Aged-about43..years'} Occ. Medical Prdctitioner, R/o^{H.No.9-1 1-399111A'Jansi Bazar, Golkonda,} Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High courtmay be} pleased to rssue writ, order or direction^{more particularly one in the nature of} writ of certiorari by calling^{the records relatingto F.A.No.108 of 2019 against} E.A.No. 4 of 2014 in C.c.No.^{257 of 2012 passed by the ',lst respondenti.e. The} Telangana State consumer^{Disputes Redressalcommission,Khairtabad,} Hyderabad, order dated^{13-11-2020which was passed without appreciating the} facts, law and record as^{such the same is in violation of principles of natural} justice and also in violation of Articte 14 and 21 of Constitution^{of lndia andliable} to be set aside

¶21

A NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} suspend the^{operation of order passed in F A No' 108 of 2019 agairstE.A No 4} of 2014 in C^{C.No.257 of 2012passed by the '1st respondenti e The Telangana} StateConsutnerDisputesRedressalCommission'Khairtabad'Hyderabad'order dated 13/1^{1t2O2Opending disposal of the above writ petition'}

¶23

IA NO:1 OF^2O21

¶24

Between

¶25

Dr. Abrar Ul^{Haq Qureshi,} S/o Abdul Haq^{Qureshi,Agedabout43 years'} Occ. Medical^{Practitioner,} R/o H No.9-1^{1-3ggt1lA,Jansi Baza',Golkonda'} Hyderabad

¶26

...PETITIONER/RESPOI.IDENT^No'3

¶27

And

¶28

'1 M/s Hilton Constructions^{Builders and Developers' Rep by Managing Partner} frf .n.f.fry..rn,^{S/o M-A.Raheem' Aged about 40 years'Occ ArclritectHaving} ;ffi";;i Premises^{No 1-3-1029,-Hilton tlcon,4thFloor'Opp Court Yard} Marriott,LowerTankBund,Hyderabad. ...REspoNDENT/tDETlloNER

¶29

2 The Telangana^{State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommissiorKhairtabad'} Hyderabad.

¶30

n ine oistrict Consumer^{Forum-lllHyderabad, Hyderabad}

¶31

...RESiPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under^{Section1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances} statedintheaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition'theHighCcurtmaybe pleasedtovacatethelnterimordersdatedlTtl2l2o2opassedinW,P.No22598 ot22oObydismissingtheWritPetitionwithexemplarycostsintheinterestof justice

¶33

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI' KATIKA RAVINDERREDDY}

¶34

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.1 & 2 :} -----

¶35

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3 : SRIMALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY}

¶36

The Court made^{the following: COMMON ORDER}

¶37

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY}

¶40

AND

¶41

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICELAXMINARAYANAALISHETTY} InterlocutorY^{Application No. I of 2O21} in / and Writ Petitio n No.22598^{of 2O2O}

¶42

COMMON ORDER^:

¶43

The present Writ^{Petition has been filed by the} petitioner trnder Article 226^{of the Constitution of India} challcnging the order^{dated 13.11.2022in F'A'No'108 of} 2019 against E.A.No.4^{of 2Ol4 inC'C'No 257 of 2012} passed by the 1st t'espondenL-Telangana^{State Consnmer'} Disputes Redressal^{Commission, Hyderabad (for short, 'the} 1 ", respondent-Commission)'

¶44

2, Hearcl Mr. I{. tRavinder^{Reddy, learned counsellor the} petitioner and Mr.Madipeddi^{Srinivas Reddy,learnedcounsel} for the 3'd respondent

¶45

3 The facts in nutshell^{is that the 3'd respondent and his} wife, intending^{to purchasc:two flats, had enteredinto an} agrccment ol^{sale rvith the pet.itioner lor purchase ol Flat}

¶46

.r...-.1

¶47

2 t,\l. | ,r LN A..l \ t) ll ig8 l0l.

¶48

Nos.G. I and G.2, admeasuring 800 Sq.ft. each, v,,ith two car parkings lor cach flat, costing { 13,37,.500 l- each and the total sale consideration for the tr,,,,o flats was {.2rt,75,OOO/_. The agreement of sale was entered on 12.05.200i1. Initially, an amount of ?.22,2O,O00/- was paid by the 3.d respondent and his wife to the petitioner. However, possessi,cn was not given. It was in this context that the wife of 3'd respondent filed a complaint at the first instance before the 2nd respondent-Forum. Vide order dated 02.Og.2OlO in C.C.No.426 of 2OO9, the 2nd respondent-Forum ciisposed of the said complaint r.l,ith a direction to the petitioner to pay the ba-lance amounr of {.4,50,O00/- with interest ,@ 6 ok per annum from OL.06.2009 till the date of deposit u,ithin four (O4) weeks, and the opposite party, on comlrletion of construction, shall deliver possession within four (O4) weeks from the date of deposit of the aforementioned amount. Accordingly, the said complaint was disposed of. The said order was affirmed uptill the Hon'ble Apex Court travelling all the way from the State commission to the National Commission and thereafter to the Hon,ble Ape,x Court.

¶49

3 PS K.J & I-NA.] !p ll-i93 2020

¶50

¶51

During the interregnum, the 3.d respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad which was registered as C.C.No.257 of 201,2 The petitioner, in spite of notice, did not appear before the on District Forum and an ex parte order was passed 30. 10.2O 13 directing the petitioner to complete the construction within four (04) months and to deliver the Flat No.G. I as per the specifications subject to the 3'd to respondent making a balance payment of {.4,5O,O00/the petitioner. It was also directed that the petitionerCompany shall pay interest @ 9o/o per annum on {.22,50,O00/- from 21.06.2OO8 till realization. In addition, there was also an order of compensation of t.2,0O,O00/- to be paid by the petitioner to the 3'd respondent. Alleging 1n non-compliance of the order dated 30.1O.2O13 passed C.C.No.257 of 2Ol2 by the petitioner, the 3'd respondent was before ttre 2"d respondent-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-lll, Hyderabad. Vide order dated L3.11.2O2O, in F.A.No.108 of 2019 against E.A.no.4 of 2OL4 in C.C.No.257 of 2012, the said appeal stood rejected on the (

¶52

¶53

{

¶54

I'SK .l r l..,..1 \p llj98 l0l

¶55

ground of limrtation n,hich was further adjudicated, and the matter travelled uptill the Honble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, viz., Special Leavc Petition (Civil) Diary No.3O756 12019, preferred by the petiticner. The Honble Apex Court, while hcaring the Special Leave petition on 23.06.2O20, rnade the following observations

¶56

"We decLine to interfere in this Special Leaue' pe,tition The Special Leaue Peti.tion is accordinglg dismissed.

¶57

Howeuer, t.lrc petitioner is free to pursue stLch other remedies os maA be pennissible in latu.

¶58

In uieut oJ th.e aboue, pending appliccttion(s) sholl stand disposed of."

¶59

Thereafter, thc petitioner has now preferred the instant writ petition with the following relief , viz.,

¶60

"It is thereJore praged that this Hon'ble Court nag be pleased to issue a Wit, Order or direction more parlicularlt, one'n the nature of a Wit of Certtorai bg calling for the record.s retating to Order dated 13.1 1.2020 in F.A.No. 1O8 of 2O19 against D.A.No.4 of 2014 in C.C.No.257 of 2Ol2 passed_ bg tlte 1o respond.ent, i e., The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Red.ressal Comntission, Khairatabad, Hgderabad, and to quash the same tnsofar as it u)ent agatnst to the u,it petition.er; and consequentlg, to set asid_e the order dated 16,O1.2019 in E.A.No.4 of ZQ!+ in C.C.No.2S7 of 2O12 tuhich utos passed Luithout appreciating^'ihe facts,^{latu and record.,} as such, the same is tn uiolat[on of pincipte:s of natural jttsttce and"

¶61

PSK,J & I,NA,J lvp 22598 2020

¶62

¶63

also in uiolotiorl of Articles 14 ond 2l of the Constitution of Ind_ia ond liable to be set oside..

¶64

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner reiied upon a series of decisions trying to canvass that since the Honble Apex Court has not gone into the merits of the case while rejecting the Special Leave Petition, the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Special Leave Petition was decided on technica-lities ald the petitioner not being able to satisfactorily explain the delay caused in filing the appeal before the State Commission and also the order under test before the Hon'ble Apex Court, being the rejection of the Appeal, on the ground of it being barred by Limitation, the merits of the order passed by the District Commission can be looked into by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶65

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner banked upon the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry vs. Government

¶66

6 I'SK .I & LNA,J \ l) ll-iqs 202 '

¶67

of Andhra Pradeshr in addition to other judgmerrts so far as explaining the conduct of 3,.d respondent is concerned.

¶68

Having heard the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is pertinent to take note of the lact that the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding -he Special Leave Petition had emphatically declined to interfere in the Special Leave petition filed by the petitioner i,r,hic.h, in other words, would mean that the Honble Apex Court was of the firm view that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi confirming the order of^.the 1st respondent-commissi,n was ,ot worth interfering or there was no strong material av.ilable on board warranting interference to the order passr:d by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commiss,ion, New Delhi, as also by the 1"r respondent_Commission. As a result of the dismissa_l of the Special Leave petitic,n 6, tn. Hon'ble Apex court, the consequences would be ttLat of the affirmation of the order passed by the ForurrLs below including that of the 2"a respondent_Forum.

¶69

' lzooly^a s.c.c. zzt

¶70

PSK,J & L,NA,J wp, 22598 2020

t I

'.,,

In the aforesaid contest, this Bench finds it diflicult to entertain the present writ petition in the aforesaid factua_l backdrop where the matter has already travelled uptill the Hon'ble Apex Court ard the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.06.2020 had specifically declined to interfere with the impugned order which includes the original order passed by the 2"d respondent-Forum in favour of the 3.d respondent.

¶75

As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the iater part of the order of the Honble Apex Court reserving the right of the petitioner to pursue sr.rch other remedies as may be permissible 1n law, this Bench is again of the firm view that the said remedy permissible in law is not, in fact, the Writ remedy. The said liberty granted by the Honble Apex Court is in respect of any remedy which is otherwise permissible under law, that too, if at all if the law permits.

¶76

For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to hold that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit, and the same ls liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is

¶77

8 P S K.J ll iqs lot

¶78

¶79

dismissed. Consequentiy, I.A.No. 1 of 2021 is allowed and the stay order granted by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.12.2O2O is vacated. No costs

¶80