- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33829-DB WP No. 24841 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 24841 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: RAJESH RAO K AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, R/A HOUSE NO-11, DOOR NO-2, 2ND FLOOR, MARAPPA GARDEN, 2ND CROSS, J.C NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 006. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRIYADARSHINI C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BASAVA BHAVANA, CHALUKYA CIRCLE, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BHARATHI AIRTEL LTD, OFFICE AT: NO. 55, DIVYASHREE TOWERS, BHANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33829-DB WP No. 24841 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO PASS AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION IN APPEAL No-1301/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order or Direction. a) To pass an order, to set aside the order dated 07.07.2025, passed by the 1st respondent: Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1301/2022 vide Annexure 'A' and b) To pass any order that, this Hon'ble Court deems fit to protect the rights of the petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity". - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33829-DB WP No. 24841 of 2025 3. The impugned orders dated 17.12.2024 and 07.07.2025, reads as follows: 17.12.2024: ”Counsel for appellant is present. None appears for respondent. Hence, objections to application filed under Section 91(1) of Cr.P.C. is taken as not filed. Heard on this application. Accordingly application is allowed and directed the respondent to furnish present status of the SIM card pertaining to mobile No.9900475767 by 15.02.2025." 07.07.2025 "Case called out. Learned counsel for appellant present. No representation on behalf of respondent. The appellant had filed application U/s 91(1) of Cr.P.C, 1973 on 14.11.2024 seeking direction to respondent to produce the current status of the Mobile No.9900475767. Objection to the said application is not filed by the respondent. The current status of mobile number has nothing to do with the appeal. Hence, the said application is rejected. Orders on I.A.No.1/2022 There is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. Accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavit, the delay of 16 days is hereby condoned. I.A.No.1/2022 is hereby allowed. Heard learned counsel for appellant. Appeal is admitted to consider on merits. Post the matter to hear arguments on merits finally by 13.10.2025." 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission rejecting the application filed under Section 91(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33829-DB WP No. 24841 of 2025 5. The State Commission has observed that the current status of the mobile number has nothing to do with the appeal. A perusal of the record reveals that neither the complaint filed before the District Commission nor the order of the District Commission is on record. However, it appears from perusal of a previous order dated 17.12.2024 that the application filed under Section 91(1) of the Cr.P.C was allowed and the respondent was directed to furnish present status of the SIM card. It is therefore, inexplicable as to how contrary orders could be passed by the State Commission. Evidently, the previous order dated 17.12.2024 was not considered by the State Commission, while passing the order dated 07.07.2025. The aforesaid two orders are reflected in the certified copy of the order sheet that has been filed along with this petition. 6. We are satisfied that the order of the State Commission dated 07.07.2025, insofar as it rejects the application under Section 91(1) of the Cr.P.C, is concerned, deserves to be set aside. The impugned order has been passed without consideration of the order of 17.12.2024. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33829-DB WP No. 24841 of 2025 7. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order of 07.07.2025, insofar as it rejects the application under Section 91(1) of the Cr.P.C 1973, is set aside. The State Commission is requested to consider the matter afresh in the light of its previous order dated 17.12.2024. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5