Mandatory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act for filing responses are rigid, and courts cannot extend them beyond stipulated periods.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petitioner has assailed an order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (“State Commission”) in R.P.No.60 of 2025 filed by the petitioners herein. The said RP was filed under Section 47 (1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”) for setting aside an order dated 08.09.2025 in I.A.No.236 of 2025 in C.C.No.110 of 2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I at Hyderabad (“District Commission”).

2. By the order dated 08.09.2025, the District Commission dismissed I.A.No.236 of 2025 filed by the petitioners for setting aside a docket order dated 07.07.2025 in C.C.No.110 of 2025 by which the right of the petitioners/Opposite Parties to file a Written Version was forfeited.

3. The petitioners herein are the Opposite Parties in C.C.No.110 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1 in the Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Court should set aside the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the State Commission and direct the State Commission to accept the Written Version of the petitioners in the main Complaint Case i.e., C.C.No.110 of 2025. Counsel submits that the petitioners do not have an alternative remedy against the impugned order since a second revision against the said order would not lie before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“National Commission”) as decided by the said Commission in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Mavuram Sujatha , R.P. No. 1879 of 2024 dated 20.01.2025. Counsel further submits that the Writ Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to do substantial justice to the parties. Counsel highlights the harsh consequences of foreclosing the petitioners’ right to file the Written Version with a delay of only forty-two days.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 argues on the maintainability of the Writ Petition and urges that the Writ Petition should be dismissed as it does not satisfy the threshold requirement for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. Counsel argues that there was a wilful lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners as they chose not to appear before the District Commission within the stipulated time despite receiving notices as well as the Complaint. Counsel seeks to rely on section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“1986 Act”) which is replicated in section 38 of the 2019 Act to submit that the District Commission does not have any power to extend the time for filing the Written Version beyond the period of fifteen days in addition to thirty days.

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the material placed on record.

7. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by the State Commission which is dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Writ Petitioners. The State Commission confirmed the docket order dated 07.07.2025 of the District Commission forfeiting the petitioners’ right to file Written Version to C.C.No.110 of 2025.

8. A brief chronology of events is given below:

i. The incident forming the basis of the Complai