IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7817 OF 2025 DATE: 20.04.2026 BETWEEN:

Mr. Kesanakurthy Srinivasa Rao.

…Petitioner AND District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Sanga Reddy and 5 others.

…Respondents Mr. Vijay Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. This writ petition assails Docket Proceedings of the District Consumer Forum dated 21.02.2025, whereby, the consumer complaint (filed by the writ petitioner) was made returnable on 18.03.2025 for the Evidence Affidavit and Marking of Documents on behalf of the complainant.

2. The petitioner before us is the complainant.

3. The impugned Docket Proceedings records that the petitioner was represented on 21.02.2025. However, the opposite party was absent and there was no representation on behalf of the opposite party. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘DCDRC’) proceeded to forfeit the right to file the written version of the opposite party since the statutory time period of 45 days had already lapsed by then. On the returnable date i.e., 27.02.2025, the proceedings got recorded that the complainant - writ petitioner was again present and the opposite party was absent without any representation. The matter was thereafter kept on 18.03.2025 for filing the Evidence Affidavit and Marking of Documents on behalf of the writ petitioner-complainant.

4. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-complainant submits that the DCDRC has adopted the practice of filing Evidence Affidavit and Marking of documents, which is not contemplated under The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘Act, 2019’) and that the respondent No.1 only forfeited the rights of the opposite party and have not declared them ex parte after the lapse of 45 days as per Section 38 (3) (b) (ii) of the Act, 2019 and that it is duty bound to set aside the orders issued on 21.02.2025 and 27.02.2025. Counsel submits that this practice prolongs proceedings unnecessarily. It is also submitted that the DCDRC imposed costs of 300 INR (Rupees Three Hundred Only) on the writ petitioner for filing of the writ petition on

06.05.2025.

5. We note from the Proceedings Sheet in the present matter that the writ petitioner obtained an order of stay on 10.06.2025 from a Co-ordinate Bench of all further proceedings in the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The stand taken by the petitioner is not only vague but also vexatious and without any support either of the statute or of any precedents on the subject.

6. We are unable to comprehend as to why the writ petitioner, being the complainant in the District Forum, would obtain a stay of all further proceedings in the Consumer Forum where the petitioner would only stand to gain if the proceedings continued and reach the conclusion. In any event, we are also unable to understand as to how the impugned Docket Proceedings dated 21.02.2025 and 27.02.2025 would cause any prejudice to the petitioner since the petitioner was directed to file an Evidence Affidavit for marking of documents.

7. The contention of counsel that filing of the Evidence Affidavit would prolong proceedings is not a matter which a Writ Court can be called upon to decide until and unless the petitioner files proceedings in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

8. This is a fit case for imposing costs on the petitioner.

9. As state above, the writ petition is wholly devoid of merits and also suffers from abuse of law.

10. W.P.No.7817 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed along with all connected applications. The interim order dated 10.06.2025 is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ___________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 20.04.2026 PVT