B.Balamukund Rao vs Sri Nimma Narayana,
2022 Latest Caselaw 847 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                   CONTEMPT CASE NO.2801 OF 2018

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

         The present contempt petition has been filed by the

petitioner, who is an Advocate and appearing in person, alleging

non-compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench in

W.P.No.9899 of 2018 dated 02.04.2018.

         The contention of the petitioner-in-person is that the

Division Bench has directed the concerned District Consumer

Disputes        Redressal          Forum        to     decide      his   complaint    in

C.C.No.425 of 2011 within a period of six months.                                    The

operative portion of the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in

W.P.No.9899 of 2018 reads as under:-

                  "Keeping in view the averments made in the writ
         affidavit and the submissions of the petitioner, who is the
         party-in-person, we hereby direct the A.P. State Consumer
         Disputes Redressal Commission to transfer C.C.No.425 of
         2011 filed by the petitioner to any other Forum other than the
         District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Nampally,
         Hyderabad to decide the matter. On receipt of the complaint
         in C.C.No.425 of 2011 on transfer, the Forum concerned shall
         dispose of the C.C. within a period of six months from the
         date of receipt of the complaint from the State Commission by
         affording both the parties an opportunity to be heard. It is
         needless to mention that the order dated 25.03.2014 passed
                                     2




     by the State Commission in F.A.No.1005/2013 against
     I.A.No.108/2013 in C.C.No.3 of 2013 District Forum-II,
     Hyderabad shall be considered by the Forum concerned if it is
     relevant in the facts and circumstances of C.C.No.425 of
     2011.
             With the above observations, the writ petition is
     disposed of. No order as to costs.
             As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending,
     shall stand disposed of as infructuous."

     The petitioner-in-person has vehemently argued before

this Court that the respondent/District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-III has not taken into account the judgment

delivered by the State Commission in F.A.No.1005/2013 against

I.A.No.108/2013 in C.C.No.3 of 2013 .

This Court has once again carefully gone through the

order passed by the Division Bench and the order makes it very

clear that the Division Bench has directed the concerned

District Forum to decide the complaint in C.C.No.425 of 2011

and to take into account the aforesaid judgment only if it is

relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether it

was relevant or not relevant was left to the discretion of the

concerned District Forum and if the judgment has not been

looked into, it does not mean that contempt has been

committed by the respondent/District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-III. Otherwise also, there is a remedy of

appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum and therefore, this Court does not

find any reason to initiate contempt of court proceedings as

prayed for.

Resultantly, the contempt case stands closed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

22.02.2022 JSU