THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA W.P.Nos.28502, 34646 and 34658 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions is one and the same.

2. W.P.No.28502 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner against the order, dated 27.05.2024 passed in FA.IA.No.533 of 2024 in FA(SR) No.1752 of 2024 by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’) and W.P.Nos.34646 and 34658 of 2024 are filed by respondent No.1 against the order, dated 29.11.2024 passed in FA.IA.(SR)No.5947 of 2024 in FA.IA.No.533 of 2024 in FA (SR) No.1752 of 2024 by the State Commission.

3. Heard Sri B. Subhash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.28502 of 2024 are hereunder discussed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that on 26.05.2018, a development agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.1 for the development of certain property. Subsequently, respondent No.1 has approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘the District Commission) by filing C.C.No.473 of 2021, contending that the petitioner has violated the terms of said agreement and sought a refund of the amount that ought to have been paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the case was adjudicated as ex-parte by the District Forum, without giving opportunity to the petitioner. The entire proceedings took place during the Covid-19 pandemic period and the petitioner claims that he was not aware of the order being passed by the District Forum, whereby the District Forum vide order, dated 06.05.2022 has directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount of Rs.26,09,000/- along with the interest @ 9% per annum besides directing the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that when it has come to the notice of the petitioner that the District Forum has passed ex-parte order, the petitioner has approached the State Commission by filing FA.IA.No.533 of 2024 in FA(SR) No.1752 of 2024 with a delay of 625 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that during the pendency of the case before the State Commission on 26.03.2024, the petitioner has deposited 50% of amount of Rs.14,50,085/- as adjudicated by the District Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that in order to establish his bonafides, he has deposited 50% of the amount before the State Commission, but the State Commission refused to condone the delay and dismissed FA.IA.No.533 of 2024 in FA(SR) No.1752 of 2024 vide order, dated 27.05.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner.

7. Aggrieved by the order, dated 27.05.2024 passed by the State Commission, the petitioner has filed Revision Petition No.2267 of 2024 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’) and the National Commission vide order, dated 10.09.2024 dismissed the said Revision Petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a complaint vide FA.IA.(SR)No.5947 of 2024 in FA.IA.No.533 of 2024 in FA (SR) No.1752 of 2024 before the State Commission to permit him to withdraw an amount of Rs.14,50,085/- along with accrued interest, which he has deposited. Since the State Commission has rejected the condone delay application, vide order dated 29.11.2024, the State Commission was pleased to permit the petitioner to withd