AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned Advocate for the petitioners, sought permission to withdraw these writ petitions, with liberty being reserved to the petitioners, to approach the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by way of an appeal, as against the impugned order of the District Consumer Forum, by invoking Section 27-A(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This submission was made on account of the resistance offered to this writ petition by Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, who submitted that this petition is not maintainable on account of availability of statutory remedy of appeal, both on facts and on law. Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi submitted that the statutory remedy being both alternative and efficacious, the writ petition may not be entertained. It is in this background, learned Advocate for the petitioners made the above said submission.
In view of the above, these petitions are permitted to be withdrawn, by leaving open all the contentions.
If the appeal is filed on or before 19-1-2015, time taken in prosecution of these writ petitions from 26-6-2013 shall stand excluded and the State Commission shall decide the matter on merit without going into the question of limitation.
Certified copies produced as Annexures be returned to the learned Advocate for the petitioners.
The interim orders passed in these writ petitions shall enure to the benefit of the petitioners, till the date of filing of the appeal, i.e., on or before 19-1-2015.
The amount in deposit is permitted to be withdrawn, for being redeposited in the appeal, when filed before the State Commission.
No costs.