The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the proceedings in a consumer dispute. The Court held the petition not maintainable as the petitioner had already filed a revision petition before the State Commission, where an interim order had been granted. The revision petition is pending and reserved.
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.
[33861
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE P.SAM KOSHY AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO: 27562 OF 2022
Between:
Sri M. Ashok Kumar, S/o. Thimmayya Gupta, Aged about 62 years, Occ;Business, R/o.'1-6-40/3, Station Road, Mahaboob Nagar, Telangana State.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Prohibition by Declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in E.A.No.32l2016 under Section-27 of Consumer Protection Act, as illegal, arbitrary, withoutjurisdiction and infringement of fundamental rights by
calling for records frrm the 2nd and 3'd Respondent herein ard corrseq ue ntia lly to declare the same as null, void and withoutjurisdiction.
(prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 05-10-2C23 vicle l.A.No.2 ot 2022 in W.P.No.27562 oI 20221
|.A.NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir(:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to grant Stay of all frrther proceedings including per;onal alpearance of the petitioner before th:2nd and 3rd in EA No.32l2016 on the file of the 2nd Respondent during lhe pendency of the above writ petition a rd pass such further order or other order or orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.RAGHU, SENIOR COUNSI:I FC)R SRI G.VASANTHA RAYUIIU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR GIVIL SUF'PLIE{;
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 : --
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI K.V.L.NARASIMHA t[LTRTHY
The Court made the following ORDER
\ \
I I
THE HOII'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L/U(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.27562 of 2o22
ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.&l.[ I(OSIrr/
The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated against the order dated 12.O5.2O16 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redress Forum-II, Hyderabad in Consumer Case No.859 of2009.
2
\
also an interim order granted in favour of the petitioner, sc, far as the further proceedings before the 2.d respondent is,:oncerned.
Conseque ntly, miscellaneous petitions perrd rng, if any,
shall stand clorred.
//TRUE COPY//
SDIV.KAVITHA ASSI|;TANT REGIqTRAR I sEc'noN or*-rcen
To
s. oirl cC toSii G.VasanthaRavudu,Advocate[oPlJC] -..-. ;. il; ccio sri k.v.L.NarasimhaMurthy,Advocate (oPlJo)
SA^
GJPrN../-
:l l I I I I I I
I I ii :
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0511012023
ORDER
WP.No.27562of 2022
1 tE STA ,t
q
oo.l 3 0 BIT ?!ts
v
* ?i .r'.-
DISPOSINGOF TIIE W.P
WITIIOUTCOSTS.
[9
X*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of a lower forum is maintainable when a revision petition has already been filed and granted interim relief by the appellate forum.
Sri M. Ashok Kumar
The State of Telangana
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad
Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri K. Mohan Reddy
Smt. V. Kavitha
P.Sam Koshy
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
