APHC010701122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36080 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3446] The Managing Director and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Basireddy Gari Somanatheswara Reddy Advocate for Respondent: GP for Civil Supplies CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 26th December 2025 P C : The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 26.11.2025, whereby the State Commission has required the petitioner to deposit 75% of the Award amount inclusive of the amount already deposited by the petitioner at the time of filing of the appeal before it. 2. It appears that the complainant before the State Consumer Forum had alleged medical negligence on the part of the petitioner Institute, which led finally to the amputation of left leg. The Divisional Consumer Forum, in those circumstances, directed the petitioner herein, who is respondent in the 2 HCJ & RRR, J W.P. No: 36080 of 2025 complaint, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service as also Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner herein came to challenge the order passed by the Forum, before the State Commission, who required the petitioners to deposit 75% of the awarded amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no reasons have been given by the State Commission as to why an additional 25% was required to be deposited by the petitioners apart from the 50% that was already deposited as was required by Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. We feel that it is quite premature at this stage to go into the entire issue which has been raised by the petitioners inasmuch as the State Commission appears to have taken a view considering the facts and circumstances of the case before it and found it a fit case to stay the operation of the order passed by the Consumer Forum subject to the condition that was prescribed, which is now challenged before us. We feel that the petitioners could not have sought, as a matter of right, the stay of the order passed by the Consumer Forum only on depositing the 50% amount, which was otherwise required under Section 41 of the Act. We 3 HCJ & RRR, J W.P. No: 36080 of 2025 do not find it a fit case to interfere with the order impugned in the present writ petition especially in a case where gross medical negligence has been alleged against the petitioners herein. We find no merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J akn 4 HCJ & RRR, J W.P. No: 36080 of 2025 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Writ Petition No: 36080 of 2025 DATE : 26.12.2025 AKN 13