ORDER
D. Biswas, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has been directed against the Judgment dated 28.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, Guwahati in CP Case No. 70 of 2001. The District Forum by the impugned judgment has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, Rs. 9,000/- as material cost of the consignment, Rs. 378/- as freight charge and Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant-respondent within 45 days. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this petition.
2. Right at the stage of motion hearing, the question came up for consideration as to whether a writ petition against the final orders of the District Forum would be maintainable in view of the provisions of appeal under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel submitted that there is no provision in the Act enabling the State Commission, the Appellate Authority, to pass any order of stay and, therefore, the petitioner having no alternative has approached this Court to vindicate his grievance.
3. To answer the above question, it is considered expedient to quote the provisions
embodied in Sections 15 and 17 hereinbelow :
“15. Appeal–Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed :
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.”
17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission–Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-
(a) to entertain-
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs; and (ii) appeal against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
The above provisions vest powers with the State Commission to entertain appeals against the orders of any District Forum and also the powers to call for records and pass appropriate orders in any pending dispute or in any dispute decided by the District Forum where the District Forum has acted without jurisdiction or has
failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. This power to pass “appropriate orders” in any pending or disposed of dispute available in Clause (b) read with the powers to entertain appeal under Section 15 and Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 17 would show that the State Commission sitting in appeal may pass “appropriate orders” in any Consumer Dispute, whether pending or disposed of. The words “pass appropriate orders” have to be read in a wider context commensurating with the appellate powers of State Commission in order to render complete justice. The State Commission has been given the jurisdiction to entertain appeals, and such jurisdiction has to be exercised on the merits of each case. Where it appears to the State Commission that the order of the District Forum under challenge in appeal is required to be stayed, the Commission cannot but act to stay the order to prevent the irreparable loss that may emanate in the absence of stay.
4. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot Act as a Court of Appeal against the judgment/order of the District Forum/State Forum and, therefore, it would not be in consonance with the principles of justice to entertain a writ petition only for the purpose of granting stay. Such a situation is inconceivable in a legal system. The Consumer Forum, whether State Commission or District Forum, dispose of original complaint petitions on the factual matrix of each case, The said order can either be affirmed or reversed only on reappreciation of evidence. The High Court cannot in its writ jurisdiction embark upon an exercise of reappreciation of evidence and assume the powers of the State Commission in its appellate jurisdiction.
5. The Consumer Act has been enacted to provide speedy redressal to consumer disputes. For this purpose, quasi-judicial machinery has been set up at the Districts, States and Central levels for immediate relief. The very purpose of the enactment would be jeopardized, and the
object and spirit of the Act clipped if writ
petitions are admitted by the High Court only for the purpose of stay. Where the District Forum acts with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction as provided in Clause (b) of Section 17 of the Act, the State Commission would be competent to “pass appropriate orders” to correct the wrong and, for this purpose, shall have the powers to order ‘stay’ of the orders/judgments under appeal.
6. Dr. Bhattacharya placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Guljari Lat Agarwal v. Accounts Officer, III (1996) CPJ 12 (SC)=(1996) 10 SCC 590, in support of his contention that a writ petition would lie to the High Court against the order of the District Forum as the State Commission has no power to pass any order of stay. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in para 21, held as follows ;
“21. Coming to the second part of the order as regards the grant of interim order, in our opinion, the National Commission was right in applying the law laid down by this Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Das. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction or power to pass any interim order pending disposal of original complaint filed before it. The impugned order in this behalf is confirmed.”
7. In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 4 SCC 225, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 36 and 44 held as follows :
“36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the Court in the grant of ex parte injunction are-
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would invoke greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the Court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice
of the Act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the Court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the Court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application;
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time;
(g) general principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the Court.”
“44A. A careful reading of the above discloses that there is no power under the Act to grant any interim relief of (sic or) even an ad interim relief. Only a final relief could be granted. If the jurisdiction of the Forum to grant relief is confined to the four clauses mentioned under Section 14, it passes our comprehension as to how an interim injunction could ever be granted disregarding even the balance of convenience.”
8. It would appear from above judgments that the embargo placed on the jurisdiction or the powers of the Consumer Forum to pass any interim order is restricted to pending original complaints to the exclusion of the disposed of complaints. The embargo is relatable to the interim orders/reliefs in pending original disputes only. The above decision cannot be construed as a bar on the powers of the Consumer Forum to pass appropriate orders of stay while exercising its jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority. It would be wrong to conceive of an Appellate Authority without power to order stay of the impugned orders/ judgments as this is likely to create a situation where a Forum will be unnecessarily burdened with reversal exercise in all such cases where
appeals are allowed. Situated thus, it would be apposite to hold that the words ‘pass appropriate orders’ in Clause (b) of Section 17 read with the provisions of Section 15 would also include within its fold the powers of granting stay in those cases where District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted illegally or with material irregularities in exercise of its jurisdiction. The powers of granting stay by an Appellate Forum is ingrained in its plenary powers to entertain and dispose of appeals except where exercise of such powers is specifically barred. In case of Consumer Forum, the confusion, if any, stands crystallized by words ‘pass appropriate orders’ in Clause (b) of Section 17. Therefore, the High Court shall not in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction entertain any writ petition against judgments/orders of the Consumer Forum only for the purpose of granting stay since it cannot exercise the appellate powers of the Consumer Forum under the Act of 1986.
The writ petition is rejected.