THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.2678 OF 2025

ORDER:

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

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“... to issue a writ order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598/2024 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and set-aside the impugned order dt.14.10.2024 passed in Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598/2024 on the file the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and pass such other orders ...”

2. Heard Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Vide impugned order, dated 14.10.2024, the applications filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petitions were disallowed and consequently, the Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598 of 2024 were dismissed, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, “the National Commission”).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are all small time farmers and they have purchased cotton seeds from respondent No.2 through respondent No.3. However, the cotton seeds purchased from respondent No.2 were of defective quality and consequently, the petitioners have suffered huge loss. Aggrieved by the supply of defective seeds by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners have approached the District Consumer Forum, Warangal (for short, ‘the District Forum’)

vide and filed complaints C.C.No.238 of 2011 and batch and the District Forum was pleased to allow the complaints preferred by the vide petitioners orders, dated 08.02.2018, and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit before the District Forum a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards crop loss with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaints till the date of realisation and to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre towards the expenditure incurred by the petitioners and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 08.02.2018, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed F.A.No.261 of 2018 and batch before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’) and the State vide Commission was pleased to allow the appeals order, dated 20.10.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached the National Commission by filing Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598 of 2024 along with applications seeking to condone the delay in vide filing the Revision Petitions. The National Commission, impugned order, dated 14.10.2024, was pleased to disallow the condone delay applications and consequently, dismissed the Revision Petitions, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the petitioners were diligent enough in filing the cases before the National Commission. Learned counsel further contended that, initially, the petitioners have entrusted the cases to one Counsel at New Delhi, but he had to move to Kerala due to medical emergency, as his mother was hospitalised during March, 2023. After returning to New Delhi, the said Counsel has shifted his office and there was change in the address of the Counsel at New Delhi. Therefore, there was some miscommunication between the Counsel appearing for the petitioners before the National Commission and the petitioners and as such, delay has occurred in filing the Revision Petitions. Therefore, the petitioners have filed applications seeking to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petitions. Learned counsel had further contended that the National Commission ought to have heard the cases on merits instead of dismissing the condone delay applications and the Revision Petitions. Therefore, appro