Heard Sri D. V. Madhusudhan Rao, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies.

2. The writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for records relating to order dated 16.6.2007 passed in I.A. No.l99 of 2006 in C.c. No.23 of 2006 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam and quash the same being violative of Section l3( 4)(v) of the Consumer Protection Act, illegal, and unconstitutional and pass such other suitable orders.

3. This Court ordered notice before admission on 30.7.2007 and further made the following order:

"Pending further orders, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.23 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Consumers Forum-II, Visakhapatnam for a period of two weeks from today." ,

Subsequent thereto, the said interim order was extended until further orders on 14.8.2007.

4. Sri Madhusudhanarao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had taken this Court through the order impugned in the writ petition and would maintain that the said order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed since the power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to make a local inspection under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, is not specifically conferred on the Consumer Fora. The Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and would maintain that in the absence of such power being conferred by the Statute, making such an order is definitely without authority and without jurisdiction and hence, the said order is liable to be quashed. The Counsel also had placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, however, would contend that it is no doubt true that such power is not specifically conferred by the Statute but inasmuch as summary trial is contemplated by the Act if the Consumer Fora are satisfied in any given case, that the noting down of the physical features may be highly essential and by an oral evidence, the Consumer Fora may not be able to appreciate the questions involved, effectively may be, that such procedure may be followed on the ground of fair play and also principles of natural justice.

6. Sri P. Rajavardhan Reddy had taken this Court through the impugned order and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a just and proper order had been made and the same not to be disturbed by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also would maintain that under the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, since specific remedies are available, the petitioners approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may have to be discouraged.

7. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the impugned order.

8. The 1st respondent filed C.C.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the Honourable Principal District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam alleging that the members of the 1st respondent's Association purchased individual flats from the opposite parties, on various dates and the opposite parties promised to provide several facilities to the members of the 1st respondent's Association for valuable consideration. It is further alleged that though the opposite parties have delivered the individual flats to the members of the 1st respondent's Association but failed to hand over the common amenities and the common areas to the 1 st respondent's Association till date, in spite of repeated demands made by the 1st respondent's Association to deliver its possession.

9. It is further alleged that the opposite parties rendered several deficient works and did not choose to rectify the same in spite of repeated demands made by the 1st respondent's Association. The following are the defective works rendered by the opposite parties. It is further alleged that t