SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU, J :- The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a builder running the business in partnership under the name and style of M/s. Sriama Builders. In WP No.8846 of 2006 the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 22.2.2006 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (1st respondent) (in short, National Commission) passed in FA No.435 of 2005 and passed against the order dated 3.9.2004 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (2nd respondent) (in short, State Commission) in CD No.58 of 2002. In WP No.19211 of 2009, the petitioner seeks another writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings in PP No.35 of 2007 in CD No.58 of 2002 pending before the State Commission.

2. The 3rd respondent in WP No.8846 of 2006 who is the 2nd respondent in WP No.19211 of 2009 who is Srirama Apartments Welfare Association (in short, the Association) represented by its President filed complaint in CD No.58 of 2002 before the State Commission against the petitioner and Uppal Kalan Municipality for direction to the petitioner to comply with deficiencies shown in the Annexure or alternately to pay Rs.15,03,892/- as compensation. The Association is represented by the owners of flats in Srirama Apartments in Street No.2 of Srinivasapuram, Ramanthapur located in Uppal Kalan Municipality. Notice of CD No.58 of 2002 was sent by the State Commission to the petitioner and it was returned as refused. After enquiry, the State Commission allowed the complaint by the order dated 30.9.2004 directing the petitioner to adhere to the terms and conditions of joint compromise agreement dated 13.7.2001 and secure water connection from Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order and to pay compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- (i.e., Rs.5,000/- X 32) and costs. The complaint was dismissed against the 2nd opposite party who is Uppal Kalan Municipality. After receiving copy of the said order, the petitioner filed a petition before the State Commission under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside ex parte order dated 13.9.2004. The State Commission rejected the said petition on the ground that it has no power to set aside its own order as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to it. Thereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5839 of 2005 questioning the same and the said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court on 16.9.2005 granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the National Commission within four weeks. Thereupon, the petitioner filed appeal in FA No.435 of 2005 before the National Commission on 10.10.2005 along with an application for condonation of delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. The National Commission by its impugned order dated 22.2.2006 dismissed the appeal in limini along with the application for condonation of delay.

3. The 3rd respondent filed counter in WP No.8846 of 2006 opposing the petition. Notice of WP No.I9211 of 2009 was given to the 2nd respondent-Association before admission. The Association opposed the said writ petition. After dismissal of appeal by the National Commission, the Association filed Penalty Petition in P.P.No.35 of 2007 in CD No.58 of 2002 before the State Commission under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for punishing the petitioner for non-compliance of orders passed by the State Commission.

4. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the State Commission is one in the nature of granting relief of enforcement of joint memo and that it is nothing but in the nature of granting relief of Specific Performance in respect of Ex.A8 joint memo marked in CD No.58 of 2002. It is further contended that Ex.A8 joint memo is not proved by the 3rd respondent before the State Commission. It is further contended that even Civil Court cannot grant the relief whic