- . [3526 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE y > PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYy AND the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7773 DF 9niQ ^ RAO Between: SBI Cards and Payments Services Private Limited, Rep. by its AM Litigation, I. Mrudula, W/o.Dr.Venkatesh.S. Having its Registered Office at at Unit Nos.401 and 402, 4th Fioor, Aggarwal Miilennuim Tower, E- 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi-110034. ...Petitioner AND 1. Chairman, Permanent Lok Dalat, Kadapa. 2. Shri.Shaik Abdul Fahid, S/o.S. Abdul Wahid, Akkayapalli, Kadapa District. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India District. 64/147, Bhavaninagar, Bazaar Branch, Kadapa ...Respondents^ Petition under Articie 226'of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction may more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order dated 03-04-2019 passed by the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat of 2018 titled as “Shaik Abdul Shaheed at Kadapa in PLAC No.349 Vs The Nodal Officer and Anr , as illegal, unconstitutional arbitrary and highly irrational and violative of Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1®* case. lA NO: 1 OF ?niQ ^ Petition under Section tsT CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent for fresh disposal of the case- ^ IANO:2QF?niQ ^ respondent for fresh disposal of the Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased "tp grant No. 349/2018 dated 03.04.2019 praying that in the circumstances - in support of the petition, the High Court may be to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of PLAC passed by Hon’ble permanent LOK Adalat or public utility services Kadapa in interest of justice and fair play pending further proceeding in main writ petition. ^ Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. ^ Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: N ASHWANI KUMAR ^ SRI S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY APHC010180452019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 7773/2019 [3526] RAO Between: SBI Cards And Payments Services Private Limited AND ...PETITIONER Chairman and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N. ASHWAN I KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KADASANI SUDERSHAN REDDY 2.S LAKSHM INARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petitioner is filed seeking the following relief: 2. "... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat at Kadapa in PLAC No.349 of 2018 titled as “Shaik Abdul Shaheed Vs. The Nodal Officer and Anr”, as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and highly irrational and violative of Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1®‘ respondent for fresh disposal of the case and pass such other orders or order " The brief facts of the case are that; 3. credit card bearing petitioner issued The a No.0004726427580386787 with a credit limit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein upon submission of an application along with KYC documents duly signed by him. A dispute arose with regard to the usage of the said credit card, more particularly, with reference to a transaction dated 04.01.2018. After due enquiry, it was found that the disputed transaction was performed in 3-D secure environment and the same was validated by the respondent No.2 by way of CW and an OTP, which was exclusively known only to the outcome of the investigation was communicated to respondent No.2. The respondentNo.2. 4. The respondent No.2 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services at Kadapa by filing a petition, vide PLAC No.349 of 2018, impleading Nodal Officer, Customer Correspondence Unit, as respondent No.1 and the Branch Manager of State Bank Bazaar Branch, Kadapa, as respondent No.2. Adalat, after considering the matter, 03.04.2019, the releant portion of which reads as follows: of India, The Permanent Lok passed an award dated "In conclusion of the observations in the earlier para it is held that the petitioner duly proved that there is deficiency in the service on the part of the respondents, while passing respondent to on the data about the petitioner from the 2'^^ the 1®^ respondent for issuing the credit card without application and while the 2"’'* his respondent charging the statement for un-authorised withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 04.01.2018 and thus they are liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each as compensation to the petitioner for his loss mental agony. and In the result, the petition shall be allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and that the respondents 1 to 2 shall pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the petitioner by depositing the same within one month from the date of this award i.e., 03.04.2019 before the District Judge 4 Court, Kadapa to the credit of this award communicated u/s- 22(E) of APLSA Act for purpose of execution and that on such deposit the petitioner shall be permitted to withdraw the said Rs.2,00,000/- payable to him." the orders dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned 5. Challenging Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the respondent No.2 by resorting to acts of mis- secured the order impugned in the Writ the communication dated 31.10.2018, addressed representation and fraud Petition. Referring to respondent No.2 by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank Branch, and the legal notice dated 19.02.2018, got to the of India, Kadapa issued by the respondent No.2 to the General Manager, State Bank of Head Office of the State Bank of India Card Division, he India, as also contend that though the respondent No.2 is aware that the State Bank of India Card Section is the concerned party, without impleading would the same, the respondent No.2 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat and secured the impugned order by playing fraud. Placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Yalamarthi Narasimha District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalath) at Rao Vs. The 5 Vijayawada and Ors.'', as injustice was meted No.2, who obtained orders from to misrepresentation, the Writ Petition i may not be relegated to avail the other legal impugned in the Writ Petition. This Court has considered on record. At the outset, it learned counsel sought to impress upon this Court that out at the behest of the respond^t the Permanent Lok Adalat by re; :incr IS maintainable and the petitioner remedies against the order 7. the submissions made and perused the material 8. may be noted that, Division Bench in the decision cited as observed by the learned supra, in extraordinary cases, a conclusion, by looking into the or mis-representation has been a Writ Petition where the Court, prima facie, comes to material placed on record, that fraud played and resorted to by the parties. may be entertained. But, in the present case, such aliegation is made that the Award of the •mpugned in the present Writ Petition by mis-representation. as seen from the pleadings Permanent Lok Adalat was obtained by playing fraud pleading, this Court is of made by the learned no or In the absence of such the considered view that the submissions counsel Further, several disputed for the petitioner cannot be appreciated. 2022(1) ALT 553 6 ek questions of fact are involved and the same cannot be examined in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not as if the Writ Petition is the only remedy available to the petitioner, more particularly, when it is the case of the petitioner that fraud or mis representation has been played by the respondent No.2. As the matter involves disputed questions of fact, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Civil Court and seek a declaration that the Award of Permanent Lok Adalat has been obtained by playing fraud. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is 9. needless to observe that if the petitioner adopts such course of action, laying challenge to the Award of the Lok Adalat, before appropriate forum, the same shall be examined on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/-M. RAMESH BABU deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. N ASHWANI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] ^ 2. One CC to SRI. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Advocate [OPUGf 3. Three CD Copies high court DATED;22/04/2025 ORDER OF ANO^ O'o I ?OU120» OV rn:„ -Xi' Currsnt Section WP.No.7773 of 2019 I disimissiong the writ COSTS petition without