B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly prays for issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dt. 11-12-2002 in R. P. No. 188 of 2002 on the file of the A. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Hyderabad and quash the same.

( 2 ) IN order to consider as to whether the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction, relevant facts may have to be noticed.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint C. D. No. 1520 of 1998 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad alleging certain deficiencies of service by the writ petitioner.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioner is a builder who undertook to develop and construct residential flats in the premises bearing Municipal door No. 1-2-412/5, Valmeeki Nagar, domalguda, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent/complainant was a tenant in the said building. That as per the agreement dt. 21-8-1996 executed between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has agreed to vacate the premises and deliver possession of the building subject to the condition that the builder provides a three bed room flat on the south east corner of the 1st floor of the proposed building along with car parking facility at a concessional rate of rs. 2 lakhs. Admittedly, the writ petitioner herein did not deliver the south east corner flat after completing the construction of the flats. It was alleged by the 2nd respondent that the writ petitioner herein was trying to negotiate with third parties to sell the said south east corner flat and in those circumstances he filed the complaint before the District Forum as against the petitioner to complete the construction work and deliver possession of the south east corner flat to him and also for grant of injunction and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.

( 5 ) THE writ petitioner herein opposed the complaint on various grounds. The case set up by the writ petitioner was that pursuant to the Development Agreement dt. 2-9-1996 between the owner of the site and the builder, certain flats including the south east corner flat went to the share of the owner and hence the agreement between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent became Impossible of performance and hence the complaint petition should be dismissed.

( 6 ) THAT after due enquiry, the District forum disposed of the complaint by order dt. 17-8-2000 directing the builder to (a) execute and register conveyance deed and deliver possession of south east corner flat of the first floor of the building within three months of payment/deposit of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 and other expenses by the complainant; (b) to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,500. 00 per month from 5-5-1999 towards rent till the date of delivery of the possession of the flat to the complainant; and (c) to pay costs of Rs. 1000. 00. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the A. P. State Consumer redressal Commission, Hyderabad was dismissed on 21-3-2001 confirming the order of the District Forum. The Revision Petition was; also dismissed by the National Consumer dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. S. L. P. preferred by the writ petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the result the order passed by the District forum attained finality.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the 2nd respondent herein filed complaint purporting it to be under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) (for short the-Act ) against the writ petitioner for punishing him for his failure to comply with the order passed by the district Forum and to execute and enforce the order dt. 17-8-2000 passed by the District Forum. The writ petitioner opposed the said petition inter alia contending that the owner of the building filed Civil Suit O. S. No. 783 of 2001 on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document