Writ petition seeking directives for consumer commission adjudication procedures and timeline was withdrawn by counsel with consent of parties; petition dismissed accordingly.
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.
[3411 ]
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial OriginalJurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THETWENTY EIGHTH DAYOF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITIONNO:33232 oF 2024
Between:
Ch.V.K.SaiRam,S/o.Ch.BhavannarayanaSarma(late),Age.,30,.occu. Pvt. Employee,nllo.?"totltrl,Iooi[, s""6nt floor'Roai number 12' Adarsh Naoar. H.Ppetrot tu;r,'"c-nitr'"''gJ''- uppal' 'Uppal' K vRangareddy' Tel"angana 500039
...pETr,oNER
AND
Department ot consl],it"i'in"jiil,n"p Delhi, 11001 ...RES'ONDENTS
...RES'ONDENTS
Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court may be pleasedtoissueaWrit,Orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Certiorari.
,1-TodeclarethecurrentprocedureofadjudicationfollowedbyRespondent consumercommissions i.e. (lFiling of Complaint'2. Written versionof EvidenceAffidavit of Complainant' 4' EvidenceAffidavit of respondent,3 respondent,5.Markingof Evidenceof Complainant,6' Marking of Evidence of
respondent, 7- Written arguments by Complainant, g. Written arguments by respondent and 9. orat subniission hearing) as arbitrary, i[egar and contrary to the objects of the consumer protection Act 201g and decrare that the respondent no 1 (DCDRC, Ranga Reddy District) is duty bound to forow the procedure envisaged under section 3g of the consumer protection Act 2019 being the special law and d rect to conduct proceedings i.e. (i. Receive Complaint, 2, written statement o, Respondent with affidavit, and 3. hearing) read with Rule 26 (Avoid using CPC) of the Consumer protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regurations, 2o2o as has been arso upherd in Apex court in crVIL AppEAL NO.10941-'10942 0F 2013, dated.4th March 2020 New rndia Assurance co. Ltd vs Hiili Murtipurpose cord storage pvt. Ltd on 4 March,2o2o
2 To direct the Respondent No. 01 (Ranga Reddy District commission) to dispose of our petitron in the next 30 days as date of firing is 13th June of 2024 and written version submitted by the opposite party is 3rd septem ber of 2024 and so far 85 days r-ave erapsed and onry written arguments (as there is counser of record for parties in the concerned consumer case) as per Rure 13 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission procedure) Regulations, 2020
3' To decrare that the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 are duty bound to forow the procedure envisagec in section 38 of the cp Act 201g and that the Respondent No 4 (NCDRC) have the administrative contror over a, state commissions under section 70 0f the 201g Act and to ensure that the states and District commissions adjudic;ate proceedings before them as per section 3g of cp Act 2019, and direct Respondent No. 4 (NCDRc) to consider sending communication to all consumer commissions to forow the section 3g scrupurousry i.e. (1. Receive compraint, 2. written statement of Respondent (written arguments if counsel is on record) and 3. Decide the complaint on merits) Counsel for the petitioner: SRI R. VIJAY GOPAL
Gounsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Gp FoR crvrL suppLrEs
COUNSEI fOrthc RESPONdENT NOS. 4 & 5: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSdiICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLESRI JI'STICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
.:,:'
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO
WRIT PETITIONNo.33232 of 2024
ORDER @erHon'bleSP,J)
Sri R. Vijay Gopai,learned counsel for the petitioner' learned GovernmentPlead.erfor Civil Supplies for respondentNos' 1 to 3 and Sri B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representingSri Gadi Praveen Kumar,learned Deputy SoLicitor General of India'for respondentNo.5.
4 Accordingly, theWrit Petitionis dismissed as withdrawn
with the libertyprayed for. No costs'
Interlocutoryapplications,if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTAN REGI TRAR //TRUE COPY//
\
SE N OFFICER
To,
BM MP (P
(P
HIGH COURT
DATED:28 t11t2024
ORDER
.a TrlE S t4
(t1
0sJffia2[ r
,.t ?
<br>{
rcr{EO *
4
WP.No.33232 of 2024
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS
() Ylr
2u, \9,-,
ae$<br>
Ch.V.K.SaiRam
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy
State of Telangana, Department of Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Union of India
SUJOY PAUL
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
