ORDER

1. RESPONDENT 4 HEREIN FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE FORUM") ON THE GROUND THAT DISCONNECTION OF HIS TELEPHONE WAS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. THE DEPARTMENT TOOK A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BEFORE THE FORUM THAT SUCH A COMPLAINT CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE FORUM. THE SAID OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS ALLOWED. THE DEPARTMENT, INSTEAD OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION FILED A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE AFORESAID HOLDING THAT THE FORUM UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT") HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AND DECIDE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SUBSCRIBER AND THE DEPARTMENT, THOUGH REMEDY BY WAY OF ARBITRATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 7-B OF THE TELEGRAPH ACT.

2. AGGRIEVED, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN PREFERRED A WRIT APPEAL BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT. THE APPELLATE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UNDER THE ACT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT OF THE