Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Narne Sukanya, vs The State Of Ap on 28 November, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench
Sr.Nos:-
APHC010527732024 AT AMARAVATI
1, 5, 7,
8, 17, 22
WRIT PETITION No: 27389 of 2024 [3446]
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.27452, 27493, 27536, 27754 and
27809 of 2024
Narne Sukanya ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State Of Ap and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. P. Durga Prasad
Advocate for Respondent: GP for Civil Supplies
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 28th November, 2024.
PC:
Since, in all these petitions common questions of law are involved, we
propose to dispose of the same by way of this common order.
For facility of convenience, facts in W.P.No.27389 of 2022 are being referred
to:
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was the
respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for
short, "the District Commission") in C.C.No.379 of 2023, challenging the order
dated 26.07.2024, passed by the District Commission in S.R.No.981 of 2024
in C.C.No.379 of 2023, whereby the application was filed purportedly under
2
HCJ & RRR, J
WP_27389_2024 & batch
Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, "the C.P. Act,
2019"), has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner had filed the application invoking the Section 38(8) of the
C.P. Act, 2019, seeking interim directions for rejection of the complaint filed by
the complainant - respondent No.3 herein, primarily on the ground that it was
barred by limitation and further that allegations of cheating and fraud could not
be dealt with by the District Commission under the C.P. Act, 2019.
3. The application so filed by the petitioner herein was rejected on the
ground that the relief that is sought for in the application would not fall within
the definition of an interim order as defined under Section 38(8) of the C.P.
Act, 2019. It was further held that granting relief as prayed for by the petitioner
would be in the nature of a final order which would affect the very rights
prescribed under Section 36(2) of the C.P. Act, 2019 and could not be granted
by way of an interim order.
It was also held that once the Commission rejects the complaint, the
entire proceedings would be terminated, which was not envisaged in terms of
the C.P. Act and that there was no provision on the lines of Order VII Rule 11
of the C.P.C. which would enable the District Commission to tread on that
path.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the view expressed
by the District Commission is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the issue of
3
HCJ & RRR, J
WP_27389_2024 & batch
limitation would go to the root of the matter and that the Commission was
under an obligation to decide the same.
5. On a reading of the orders impugned, it does appear that the District
Commission has returned a finding that the issue of limitation would involve
mixed questions of law and fact, which could not be decided at the threshold
stage and that the complaint could not be rejected on that ground.
Without commenting on the orders passed by the District Commission,
we are of the opinion that the same are appealable in terms of Section 41 of
the C.P. Act, 2019 and the petitioner could as well avail the alternate remedy.
6. Be that as it may, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders
passed by the District Commission, dated 26.07.2024, in S.R.Nos.981, 978,
979, 984, 974 and 980 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.379, 381, 383, 375, 399 and 397 of
2023 respectively and leave the petitioner free to avail the alternate remedy, if
so advised. The present writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
SSN