THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.30494 OF 2025 Mr. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Writ Petition arises out of an order dated 21.08.2025 in I.A.No.191 of 2025 in C.C.No.295 of 2024 passed by the III District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, (District Consumer Commission) dismissing a application made by the petitioners herein for setting aside an order dated 13.02.2025 whereby the right of the petitioners to file their chief affidavit was forfeited. The order dated 13.02.2025 is not part of the records.

2. The respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the Consumer Commission wherein the petitioners were the opposite parties and the complaint was later transferred to District Consumer Commission.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the District Consumer Commission did not take into consideration the facts or the reasons for which the petitioners counsel was unable to appear on the relevant date i.e., 13.02.2025.

4. We however note that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order containing several findings on the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. The findings include that the petitioners took several adjournments on the ground of ill-health of their counsel. Moreover, the petitioners were given enough opportunity to argue their case and also to comply with the conditional order dated 13.02.2025. Although this order is not on record, the Court is informed that the petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs.500/-. Admittedly, the petitioners failed to comply with the conditional order. The District Consumer Commission also found that the petitioners took contrary pleas in the petition and also failed to produce any medical certificate with regard to the alleged illness of their counsel.

5. The reasons given by the District Consumer Commission appear to be in view of the absence of any such records. The records are not filed even in the present writ petition. The solitary line in Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed by the petitioners is that the counsel was suffering from ‘Lung Infection’. The affidavit does not clarify or explain the delay with sufficient clarity.

6. We hence do not find any error in the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 and accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition. In any event, the Court is informed that the petitioners were given an opportunity to file their Notes of arguments before the District Consumer Commission.

7. WP.No.30494 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

09^th October, 2025.

SUS