IMPORTANT POINT
Long pendency of cases before District Fora and State Commissions disabling successful party from seeking execution of orders causes undue hardship to parties who succeeded before District Forum.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed seeking issue of a Writ of Prohibition against respondent No. 1- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad, from proceeding with EA.No.11 of 2017 in CC.No.270 of 2013 during the pendency of FA.No.A/237/2016 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both parties and perused the record.

3. A consumer dispute was instituted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in connection with an agreement of sale, dated 07-05-2008. The said dispute was registered as CC.No.270 of 2013 by respondent No. 1. After hearing both sides, respondent No. 1 has passed an order on 16- 09-2016, granting certain reliefs to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 including payment of a sum of Rs.4,08,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for Telangana State, which was registered as FA.No.237 of 2016. Pending the Appeal, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed EA.No.11 of 2017 before respondent No. 1 for penalising the petitioners for non-compliance with the Order, dated 16-09-2016, in CC.No.270 of 2013, passed in their favour. Feeling aggrieved by entertainment of the said Application by respondent No. 1, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition.

4. At the hearing, Mr.Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as the order passed by respondent No. 1 in CC.No.270 of 2013 has not attained ‘Finality’ within the meaning of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No. 1- Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 27 of the Act. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Maytas Properties Limited, rep. by its Authorized Signatory V. Nagaiah & Another v. A.P.State Consumer Redressal Commission and others, AIR 2013 AP 93.

5. Opposing the above submissions, Mr.Kamini Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that there is no prohibition under the Act from entertaining an Application under Section 27 of the Act though the Forum might not proceed with its hearing and pass an order before the order appealed against attained Finality. He has, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition filed against the very entertainment of the Application under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for both parties with reference to the record.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Maytas Properties Limited (cited supra), considered an identical situation and on analysis of the provisions of the Act in general and Sections 24 and 27 of the Act in particular, observed as under:—

“We find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. What is challenged in the present batch of writ petitions is only an order passed by the State Commission dismissing the interlocutory applications filed by the writ petitioner to reject the petitions filed under Section 27 of the Act on the ground that no such petitions can be maintained while the appeals preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act are pending before the National Commission. Since no final order as such is admittedly passed on the petitions filed by the respondents under Section 27 of the Act, the question of appeal under Section 27-A does not arise at all. Hence, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal cannot be accepted.”

8. The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that there is no bar on respondent No. 1-Forum entertaining the application is in the