JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 1 and Ors. against order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') ignoring that statutory remedy of appeal was available to them u/s 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the 1986 Act').

3. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against Bharti Tele-ventures Ltd., ICICI Bank Limited and American Express Bank Ltd. with the prayer for award of exemplary damages to the tune of `34,50,000/- for harassment, mental agony and financial loss suffered by her on account of unsolicited calls received on her mobile phone from various banks/ financial institutions and other companies. She pleaded that despite repeated representations made to the opposite parties, no remedial measure was taken by them and she continued to suffer harassment due to unsolicited calls which had adversely affected her life in different ways.

4. The State Commission took cognizance of the complaint filed by the Appellant, issued notice to the opposite parties and passed order dated 01.05.2006, paragraphs 9 and 10 of which are extracted below:

9. We hereby, by interim order direct all the service providers of mobile phone services not to disclose any personal information in their possession including the mobile phone number in their possession to any unauthorised persons including the Banks, financial institutions, finance companies as it is a breach of "Privacy Statement" and undertaking and may invite the cancellation of their licence as no stranger can possess such information without being provided by the service provider who alone is in its possession.

10. At the same time all unauthorised persons including the Banks, financial institutions, finance companies and any other persons who are not supposed to be in possession of the information of the subscribers including the mobile phone number are restrained from making calls or sending SMS to any consumer as they are vicariously, as well as directly liable for these acts

5. The application filed by Respondent No. 1 - Cellular Operators Association of India for impleadment as a party to the complaint was allowed by the State Commission vide order dated 04.07.2006. Thereafter, the State Commission passed another interim order on 27.09.2006 and gave the following directions:

While reiterating our interim order dated 25.5.2006, we hereby make the following directions to all the service providers of mobile telephone in the city as well as banks, financial institutions and any other agency who is engaged in making unsolicited calls and messages to those consumers with whom they have no contract of any kind in this regard:

(i) That every service provider shall write to their consumers whether he is interested on being put on DND, i.e., (Do not disturb) service vis-avis their calls/messages and if so as to what kind of calls and messages a consumer wants to be put on this service. Till such a communication is sent by the service providers to their consumers and response is received, the service provider shall not make any call or send any message including reminding about the telephone bills, i.e., due date of payment, etc., or informing about the new services as they should do so by sending letters giving details of such services as the contract is only payment of the bills on receipt of bill containing details of all the calls made by the consumer so as to allow the consumer to raise any objection if the calls shown are correct or not. Sending a bill by way of message calling upon the consumer to make the payment is against the terms of the contract as such message creates disturbance, inconvenience and mental agony to the consumer when he is busy in the meeting or in some other urgent work or in the office or any other place.

(ii)