APHC010278212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 714 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-39 [3584] Botta Ramesh Chandra ...Appellant Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. V. V. N. Narayana Rao representing Mr. Palla Balu Anil Kumar Advocate for Respondent: GP for Civil Supplies CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th July 2026 LISA GILL, CJ : Prayer in this Writ Appeal is for setting aside order, dated 10.04.2026, passed by learned Single Bench whereby W.P.No.7017 of 2015 and I.A. No.1 of 2024 therein have been dismissed by learned Single Bench. 2. Appellant/writ petitioner filed above said writ petition seeking a Writ of Prohibition, restraining respondent No.2 from proceeding with any inquiries/ passing any order in E.A. No. 4 of 2010 in C.C. No. 272 of 2009 and E.A. No. 5 of 2010 in C.C. No. 274 of 2009 filed by respondent Nos.3 & 4 and respondent Nos.5 & 6 respectively, pending disposal of recovery and distribution to 2 WA_714_2026 creditors of V.R. Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. 3. It was pleaded in writ petition that appellant along with one Sri V. Madhusudhan Rao were the directors of M/s. V.R. Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Company borrowed amounts of Rs.1,80,000/- from respondent Nos.3 & 4 on 15.04.2003 and Rs.80,000/- from respondent Nos.5 & 6 on 21.03.2003 by way of promissory notes executed in their favour, agreeing to repay said amounts with interest at the rate of 24% and 14% respectively. 4. The company had borrowed various amounts from 1,946 persons including private respondents above. Total amount due to entire list of creditors was Rs.26,97,58,185/-. Consumer Case Nos. 272 of 2009 and 274 of 2009 were filed by private respondents alleging deficiency of service, thus seeking recovery of amount in question. Both the consumer complaints were allowed by learned District Consumer Forum II at Visakhapatnam on 10.12.2009. Subsequently, E.A.Nos.4 & 5 of 2010 were filed by private respondents against appellant/writ petitioner and Sri V. Madhusudhan Rao, who, however, passed away during pendency of said proceedings, which abated qua him. 5. In the meantime, C.C. Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 were filed against appellant under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, 3 WA_714_2026 (for short, „APPDFE Act‟). Properties of company and petitioner were attached under the said Act. 6. It is further pleaded in the writ petition that process of auction of some of the attached properties was carried out. The amount so received was to be distributed by competent authority to the creditors. 7. W.P.No.7017 of 2015 was thus filed seeking writ of prohibition as above with plea that private respondents had no right to prosecute petitioner/appellant under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry in the E.A.s filed by private respondents. 8. Subsequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 was filed seeking an amendment in prayer of writ petition to the extent that order dated 10.12.2009, passed by District Consumer Forum II at Visakhapatnam in C.C.Nos.272 & 274 of 2009 should be set aside being illegal and arbitrary. It is to be noted that along with writ petition, order dated 10.12.2009 in C.C.No.272 of 2009 already stood filed at the inception of writ petition. 9. Learned Single Bench on considering facts and circumstances concluded that there was no merit in application seeking amendment of prayer for setting aside award in question after a lapse of 15 years. 4 WA_714_2026 10. I.A.No.1 of 2024 was accordingly dismissed. Learned Single Bench also negated pleas raised by appellant/writ petitioner that Consumer Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints for recovery of money based on promissory notes in the given factual matrix. 11. After considering the definitions of complainant, consumer and deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it was held by learned Single Bench as under: “20. Chit fund activities, including managing subscription money, conducting auctions and releasing bid amounts, falls under the definition of “service” under the consumer protection Act. Subscribers to a chit fund company are considered consumers and the chit fund companies are considered service providers under the consumer protection act. Consequently, disputes regarding deficiency in service such as delays in paying the bid amount, failure to return deposits, or unfair trade practices, can be brought before consumer courts. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that consumer court jurisdiction is not generally barred by the existence of other legal remedies, affirming that the consumer protection act provides additional special remedies. 21. In view of the above, since the petitioner‟s company is related to chit fund business and the unofficial respondents have invested some amounts in the company, the petitioner‟s company can be called as a service provider and the unofficial respondents are the consumers. As the petitioner‟s company has not returned the money to the unofficial respondents, it can be said that there is deficiency in service and the unofficial respondents have rightly approached the consumer forum and the 2nd respondent has rightly passed an award. Hence, this court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the 2nd respondent herein and the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.” 12. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed. 13. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argues that application filed by appellant seeking amendment of writ petition has been incorrectly rejected. Once 5 WA_714_2026 writ petition had been filed in 2015, merely because application for amendment was filed in 2024, it could not be held that appellant sought to challenge the awards passed by Consumer Forum after 15 years. Merely because appellant did not file an appeal formally challenging the said awards, cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for amendment. Furthermore, in the present case, it has wrongly been held that there was any deficiency in service as such. Controversy in question has not been considered by learned Single Bench in correct perspective. 14. Repayment of amount in question could not be carried out by appellant due to circumstances beyond his control i.e., registration of criminal case against him as well as seizure of his assets and properties, therefore, order/award dated 10.12.2009 in C.C. Nos. 272 and 274 of 2009 were incorrectly passed by learned District Consumer Forum. He relies upon judgments of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another (2000) 1 SCC 66, and Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd., v. Vijaya Bank 2026 INSC 264. It is thus prayed that present appeal be allowed as prayed for. 15. Learned counsel for respondents have supported impugned order dated, 10.04.2026. It is submitted that appellant along with another had lured innocent people through advertisements for fixed deposits on the premise of paying 6 WA_714_2026 interest at lucrative rates, as there was a ban by Reserve Bank of India for inviting public deposits, fixed deposit bonds were issued in form of promissory notes. The company had issued said promissory bonds while holding out that they would be treated as fixed deposit bonds for all purposes. Moreover, appellant never challenged award dated 10.12.2009, passed by learned District Consumer Forum and allowed it to attain finality. Dismissal of the appeal is sought. 16. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance. 17. Factual matrix of matter as narrated above is a matter of record and not in dispute. Writ petition was also filed after a period of five years of passing of awards in question. 18. Application filed by appellant seeking amendment of writ petition in the year 2024 has been correctly dismissed by learned Single Bench. It is further correctly held by learned Single Bench that learned Consumer Forum has correctly entertained the complaint and stated that there was deficiency in service. 19. In the case of Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Limited (supra), controversy was between a Bank and a private entity in respect to transaction involving fixed deposits. 7 WA_714_2026 20. It was held by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in above said case that burden to prove that services were availed for a commercial purpose lay upon the Bank while burden to prove deficiency in service lies on complainant. In the said case, complainant had raised allegations qua adjustment of proceeds of FDR against the amount standing in the overdraft account with the Bank claiming that the FDR on which complainant was relying upon was a forged document. 21. It is in these circumstances it was held by Hon‟ble the Supreme Court that allegations could be appropriately addressed in a regular criminal or civil proceedings. This is admittedly not the case in the present matter. 22. Judgment of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in Ravneet Singh Bagga (supra) also does not come to aid of appellant in any manner. In said case, petitioner therein was detained at Amsterdam, en route to New York for verification of his visa. Visa was found to be genuine but it led to delay in his journey. Action of staff of airline in making efforts to check the visa was found to be bona fide thus holding that the airline cannot be held responsible. 23. It is to be reiterated that appellant allowed award dated 10.12.2009, passed in C.C. Nos.272 and 274 of 2009 to attain finality and took no steps whatsoever to challenge the same for long years. 24. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.04.2026, passed by learned 8 WA_714_2026 Single Bench, which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. No other argument was addressed. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, including dispense with application, shall stand disposed of. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No 9 WA_714_2026 HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Appeal No:714 of 2026 DATE : 13.07.2026 AKN 136