JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant M/s. Thulasi Enterprises has filed this appeal questioning the orders of a learned single Judge dated 28-2-1991 dismissing Writ Petition No. 2935/91.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed by the appellant for the issue of a certiorari declaring that the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Commission, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to entertain CD. No. 117/90 filed by Sri R. Chandra Kant (second respondent) on its file and consequently the entire proceedings therein.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are as follows :-- The appellant is a partnership firm consisting often partners. They run a Mutual Benefit Fund. It is stated that there are 250 members in the said fund and that each member contributes Rs. 2,000. 00 per month for a period of thirty months. The scheme runs for fifty months. On every third Sunday of the month, in the presence of the subscribers, their names will be written on chits and put up in a box. One of the subscribers will be asked to pick up one chit. Whosoever is successful in the draw, will be allotted a Maruti car or given a cash of Rs. 1,00000. 00, whichever is less. The members will be given simple interest on the subscriptions. The 2nd respondent is stated to have joined the subscription and contributed Rs. 2,000. 00 per month. It is staled that in August 1990, he became the successful allottee either for a Maruti car or for payment of cash of Rs. 1,10,000. 00. He was declared the successful allottee in 1990 and a letter was addressed to him to that effect. On 23-8-1990, the second respondent approached the appellant requesting for allotment of a Maruti car and stating that he was going to pay any extra amount over and above Rs. 1,00. 000. 00. It is stated that accordingly on 25-8-1990, the appellant took a demand draft for Rupees 35,000/- in favour of a certain Maruti car-dealer and booked a car for the purpose of giving the same to the second respondent. It is stated that on 27-8-1990, the appellant received a letter dated 25-8-1990 from the second respondent stating that he wants allotment of the Maruti car or payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ -as early as possible, not later than fifteen days. On 28-8-1990, it is stated that the appellant sent a letter to the second respondent informing him that a Maruti car was booked and an advance of Rs. 35,000. 00 was paid and that the second respondent should be ready to pay the difference. It is then stated that on 9-9-1990, the appellant received a legal notice from the second respondent s advocate demanding refund of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 or delivery of a car within one week. It is stated that there was no delay on the part of the appellant in fulfilling the obligations. There was, however, delay on the part of the Maruti Car dealer to supply the car. The appellant informed the second respondent that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000. 00should not be returned inasmuch as a demand draft for Rs. 35,000. 00 was already taken. The appellant states that he informed the second respondent that they had no objection to pay the balance of Rs. 65,000. 00 to the second respondent. It was at that stage that the appellant received a notice from the A. P. State Consumer Commission to appear before the said Forum on 25-11-1990 pursuant to the complaint lodged by the second respondent.

( 4 ) QUESTIONING the said notice, the present writ petition has been filed by the appellant contending that under Cl. 11 of the terms and conditions of the scheme, there is an arbitration clause for reference to an arbitrator subject to Hyderabad jurisdiction. It is stated that there is no relationship of buyer and seller between the 2nd respondent and the appellant. The appellant, therefore, contended that the State Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission holding that the petitioner can as well raise all these questions before the State Commission. It is against this order that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document