← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/17017/2016dismissed no costs

Kandregula Ramachandra Prabhu v. The District Consumer Forum

2018-07-05C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy,Gudiseva Shyam Prasad4 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD Date: 05.07.2018 Between:

Kandregula Ramachandra Prabhu, S/o.Appalanaidu, aged about 55 years, R/o.D.No.1-85-1/1, Sector IV, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam and another ...

Petitioners And The District Consumer Forum, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram district rep. by its Registrar and four others.

.... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner :

None appeared Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.P. for Civil Supplies (AP) for R1 and R2 Mr.Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao for R3 and R4 The Court made the following:

Order: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: "to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the matter of writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to E.A.No.6 of 2016 in C.C.No.26 of 2014 pending on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Vizianagaram i.e. 1st respondent by issuing the Notice dated 01.04.2016 by the 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of law and consequently quash the impugned notice dated 01.04.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent". 2.

At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. 3.

Mr.Tarlada Rajasekhara Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, submitted that W.P.Nos.13170, 13174 and 16945 of 2016, filed by the petitioners against orders similar to the one impugned in this writ petition, were dismissed by this court by orders dated 20.10.2016, as withdrawn.

4.

From the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and on perusal of the record, we are satisfied that the issues raised in the present writ petition are identical to those raised in the aforementioned three writ petitions, which as noted above, were dismissed as withdrawn.

5.

In the light of the above facts, this writ petition is dismissed.

6.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1 of 2016 (W.P.M.P.No.20953 of 2016) stands disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) _____________________ (Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J) Date: 05th July, 2018 msb