Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 80

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Hima Kohli, B. Vijaysen Reddy, JJ.
V.V.L. Sujatha – Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplied Department and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.11585 of 2021
Decided On : 01-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Chakaragalla Gopal and Mr. J. Venkataram Narasimha Reddy
For the Respondent: Mr. Mamilla Ashwin Reddy

Point of law : Justice delayed is Justice denied” which is not a cosmetic statement. All the stake holders have a role to play in ensuring that justice is not delayed. There are several factors that contribute to inordinate delays in the disposal of cases, including the abuse of the legal process, adoption of dilatory tactics and cumbersome procedures.

Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 27A – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 73 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 14, 21, 300 – Agreement of Redevelopment – Breach ofAgreement – Petitioner and Respondent came into an agreement for development of property – Alleging that there was a breach of terms and conditions of Development Agreement and failure on part of respondent No.4/Developer in meeting his commitments, petitioner filed a complaint before District Forum – Said petition was allowed and respondent No.4/Developer was directed to complete construction and handover to petitioner, her share of flats – Whether another round of proceedings could have been instituted by respondent No.4/Developer before District Forum, by invoking Section 151 of CPC, for acquitting him in E.A., which stood disposed of on 19.07.2017? – Whether State Commission could have entertained an appeal purportedly filed under Section 73 of Act of 2019 against order of District Forum, dismissing above application filed by respondent No.4/Developer.
Finding of the Court : District Forum having held that there is non-compliance of order of State Commission, has dismissed application moved by respondent No.4/Developer vide order reiterating that nothing can be done in matter of his conviction under Section 27 of Act, as imposed by Forum in E.A. – No appeal lies against such an order under statute. – In guise of moving an application under Section 151 CPC, relief actually sought is to set aside order of conviction. – This would amount to reviewing order of District Forum in E.A., which has attained finality. – By doing so, respondent No.4/Developer is trying to indirectly achieve something which he could not achieve directly. – That cannot be permitted.– Petitioner, who had instituted a complaint before District Forum as long back as in year 2007 and has been successful in two rounds of litigation right from District Forum to the National Commission, has so far, not been able to receive benefits of favourable orders. – Reason being that respondent No.4/opposite party before District Forum has left no stone unturned to deprive petitioner of fruits of orders to point of filing an appeal against an order passed by District Forum, where no such appeal is maintainable in law, wherein State Commission has proceeded to grant a stay order in his favour.– It is held that F.A. filed by respondent No.4/Developer before State Commission is not maintainable in law.
Result : Petition Allowed

ORDER :

B.Vijaysen Reddy, J.

This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission) in entertaining F.A.No.144 of 2021 and passing an order dated 25.03.2021 on the interim application (F.A.I.A.No.295 of 2021) moved in F.A.No.144 of 2021, thereby staying the conviction order passed against the respondent No.4/Developer by the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Hyderabad III (District Forum) in EA.No.38 of 2013 dated 09.03.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the District Forum to enforce the order passed in E.A.No.38 of 2013 dated 09.03.2021, in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(a) The petitioner is the owner of property admeasuring 876 sq. yards bearing Municipal No.5-8-29, situated at Fathe Sultan Lane, Nampally, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule property’). The petitioner and the respondent No.4/Developer entered into a Development Agreement dated 01.06.2003 for redeveloping the aforesaid property and building flats thereon. The parties had agreed that the petitioner shall receive a share of 45% and the respondent No.4/Developer shall receive a share of 55% of the built up flats. Alleging that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and failure on the part of the respondent No.4/Developer in meeting his commitments, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, registered as C.C.No.1026 of 2007. The said petition was allowed on 09.12.2009 and the respondent No.4/Developer was directed to complete the construction and handover to the petitioner, her share of the flats.

(b) The order of the District Forum was challenged by the respondent No.4/Developer in F.A.No.208 of 2010 before the State Commission. A separate appeal, F.A.No.316 of 2010 was also filed by the petitioner, not being satisfied with the award passed by the District Forum and seeking damages before the State Commission. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 29.04.2011, with a direction to the respondent No.4/Developer to complete the construction and deliver 45% share of the built up area to the petitioner within a period of four months. Respondent No.4/Developer carried the matter in appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission), which is stated to have been dismissed. The matter was further carried to the Supreme Court in SLP, which also came to be dismissed. Thus, the order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission in the two appeals, F.A.Nos.208 and 316 of 2010, attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No.38 of 2013 before the District Forum for execution of the order dated 29.04.2011.

(c) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4/Developer evaded service of notices in E.A.No.38 of 2013 and the matter underwent several adjournments. Though NBW’s were issued against the respondent No.4/Developer, they could not be executed. The petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.29718 of 2014 for directions to the police to execute the NBW against the respondent No.4/Developer in accordance with the directions of the District Forum issued in E.A.No.38 of 2013. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, since there was an inordinate delay in the disposal of the E.A, the petitioner was compelled to file another writ petition, registered as W.P.No.36528 of 2015, for an early disposal of E.A.No.38 of 2013. Vide order dated 15.12.2015, the High Court directed the District Forum to pass final orders in E.A.No.38 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible and preferably in two months. Eventually, E.A.No.38 of 2013 was allowed on 19.07.2017.

(d) Respondent No.4/Developer then proceeded to file F.A.No.278 of 2017 under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide orde