1 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026) Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : 14.07.2026 APHC010339492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3601] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 18324/2026 Between: 1. S.BALAIAH AND SONS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, S. NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE S. BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. S. BALAIAH AND SONS, D.NO.8-1-117 (NEW NO.38-1-3), 1ST LANE, BUTCHAIAH THOTA, GUNTUR - 522 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISTPUTES REDREESSAL COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM BUILDINGS, GUNTUR - 522 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE SASTRA DIVISION (VIJAYAWADA), 9-35, 1ST FLOOR, KAVURI TOWERS, KAMAYYA THOPU CENTRE, KANUR, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, D.NO.12-26-16, G.T. ROAD, OPP. TO CHANDANA BROTHERS, KOTHAPET, GUNTUR - 522 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026) 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW AND LEGISLATION DEPARTMENT, HIGH COURT OF AP., NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, calling for the records pertaining to Review Petition No.8 of 2026 in C.C. No.75 of 2026 on the 10 file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur, and quash the Review Order dated 15.06.2026 to the extent of the observations recorded in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 thereof, which were rendered without jurisdiction and are coram non judice and consequently declare that the findings/observations contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said Review Order, to the effect that the petitioner is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and that the grievance raised by the petitioner does not constitute a deficiency of service amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commissions, and the petitioner must approch a civil court or criminal court are without jurisdiction, non-est in the eye of law, coram non judice, and shall not operate as res judicata, issue estoppel, or otherwise bind the petitioner in any subsequent proceedings before any court, tribunal, or other forum and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant an interim direction restraining Respondents 2 and 3 from placing reliance upon or using the impugned merit observations contained in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the Review Order dated 15-06-2026 in any proceedings before any forum or court; pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BALU ANIL KUMAR PALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026) ORDER :-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Balu Anil Kumar Palla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.N. Krishna Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs, appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner filed C.C.No.75 of 2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur (for short, "the District Commission"). The complaint was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction by order dated 09.04.2026 (wrongly typed as 2025 in the order). The District Commission observed that its pecuniary jurisdiction was up to Rs.50,00,000/-, whereas the claim made by the petitioner exceeded the said limit. 3. Challenging the order dated 09.04.2026, the petitioner filed Review Petition No.8 of 2026. Though the review petition was allowed by order dated 15.06.2026, the complaint ultimately came to be dismissed once again on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as under in paragraph No.11 of the judgement :- “In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant is directed to approach the Appropriate Legal For a, as the complainant is claiming for Rs.1 Crore compensation, if so, he is advised. No order as to costs.” 4 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026) 4. Aggrieved by those orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the claim made by the petitioner exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission. However, he submits that the petitioner's grievance is confined to certain observations made in the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 of the order dated 15.06.2026 passed in Review Petition No.8 of 2026, the District Commission has made certain observations, which may affect the petitioner’s case and claim. 7. Having considered the submissions made, we are of the view that the complaint was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Though the review petition was allowed, the complaint was again dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, as the petitioner has an effective and efficacious alternative remedy. It is open to the petitioner either to avail the appellate remedy, if available in law, or to institute appropriate proceedings before the competent forum having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. 9. With respect to paragraphs 7 to 9 of the review order dated 15.06.2026, we find that only the case of the complainant has been stated 5 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026) therein. However, we are of the view that, once the complaint was rejected on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, there was no occasion for the District Commission to make any observations on the merits of the case. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J Date : 08.07.2026. RPD. Whether the order is : Speaking ✔ Yes/ No Reasoned Yes/ No Reportable Yes/ No Non-Reportable ✔ Yes/ No 6 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026) 104 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI (Dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy) WRIT PETITION NO: 18324 of 2026 Date: 08.07.2026 RPD. 7 (RNT,J & PKC,J WP.NO.18324 OF 2026)