WP/27198/2005 of M.Mohana Rao, Vs K.Subba Rao, on 27 December 2005

Per R. Subhash Reddy, J

This is a petition for quashing orders dated 4.8.1997 and 5.8.2004 passed by DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore (for short “District Forum”) andAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (forshort ‘State Commission”) respectively.

The respondents herein were the complainants in C.D.No.14 of 1997 on the file ofthe District Forum. In the said proceedings, the respondents/complainants prayedthat the non-applicant (petitioner herein) be directed to refund an amount ofRs.9,200/- to each of them, with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from16.12.1996 onwards. It was their case that the petitioner had collected an amount ofRs.6,500/- from each of them at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from 5.5.1989 to15.12.1990 by giving assurance for allotment of house sites to them, and, furthercollected Rs.3,600/- towards registration charges, but, he failed to keep up hispromise regarding allotment of house sites and as such he was liable to refund theamount with interest.

The petitioner contested the complaint of the respondents. While admitting thetransaction involving deposit of different amounts by the complainants, the petitionerpleaded that the complaint was liable to be dismissed because his partner had notbeen impleaded as party.

District Forum, Nellore, vide its order 4.8.1997 allowed the complaint and directedthe petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,200/- to each of the complainants with interest atthe rate of 18% per annum from 14.9.1991 and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

On account of non-compliance of the order passed by the District Forum, therespondents filed Execution Petition No.3 of 2001. The petitioner objected to theterritorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the execution petition byalleging that entire cause of action had accrued in Ongole. The objection raised bythe petitioner to the maintainability of the execution petition was negatived by the District Forum. The appellant challenged the order of the District Forum by filingrevision before the State Commission, which negatived his objection mainly on theground that order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the District Forum had become final andit is no longer open to the petitioner to raise objection regarding territorial jurisdictionof the District Forum.

Shri P. Gangirami Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the DistrictForum as well as the State Commission committed a jurisdictional error by refusingto entertain the objection taken by his client to the very maintainability of thecomplaint and execution petition filed by the respondents. Learned counselemphasized that no part of cause of action arose in Nellore District and, therefore,District Forum, Nellore did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint madeby the respondents. He pointed out that the office of the petitioner was situated inOngole, and house sites, which were assured to be given to the subscribers werealso situated in Ongole and, therefore, only the District Forum, Prakasham had thejurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In our opinion, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel and the writpetition is liable to be dismissed summarily. Admittedly, the petitioner did notchallenge order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the District Forum by filing appeal or byavailing other legal remedy. Therefore, in the garb of challenging order dated5.8.2004 passed by the State Commission in the revision filed against the decisionof the District Forum rejecting the petitioner’s objection, we cannot allow him tochallenge order dated 4.8.1997. In this context, it is important to bear in mind that thepetitioner suffered adverse order almost eight years before filing of this petition. Thefiling of execution petition necessitated because he did not comply with the directioncontained in order dated 4.8.1997 and, in our considered view, the District Forumand the State Commission rightly declined to entertain his objection to the former’sjurisdiction to decide the execution petition because the original order dated4.8.1997 had become final.

There are two other reasons for our disinclination to entertain the writ petition. Firstly,it is belated by more than one year. Secondly, neither the District Forum nor theState Commission have been impleaded as party respondents and, in theirabsence, a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to nullify the impugned orders.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

21[st] December, 2005

Msnr/vtv

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ