Ghulam Mohammed, J.

The point involved in all these three writ petitions is one and the same, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.18276 of 2010 have been adverted to for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. Writ Petition No.18276 of 2010 has been filed challenging the order dated 2-6-2010 in CCIA No.190 of 2010 in CC No.76 of 2009 on the file of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad(for short "the State Commission") and consequently sought a direction to dismiss the complaint for want of inherent jurisdiction and to refer the disputes for arbitration.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 are the individual customers of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 is a bank. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission against the petitioner and the respondents 3, 4 and 6 herein alleging deficiency in service and sought the following prayer.

(a) Direct to pay a sum of Rs.65 lakhs together with interest @ 24% per annum from respective date of transfer of amounts from individual savings accounts to PMS account

(b) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards mental agony and torture suffered by the complainants during the course of transaction

(c) Pay the costs of this complaint which is valued at Rs. 3 lakhs."

4. Having received notice from the State Commission the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application No.190 of 2010 to dismiss the complaint filed by the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that the State Commission had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that there was an arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed between the respondent 1 and 2 and the petitioner. The respondents 3 and 4 also filed interlocutory application praying for dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission on similar grounds:

5. By the common orders in both the interlocutory applications dated 2-6-2010 the State Commission dismissed the interlocutory applications on the ground that even though there existed an arbitration clause still the Consumer Forums are entitled to proceed with the matter. Hence, this writ petition.

6. M/s Maytas Properties Limited has also filed batch of writ petitions challenging the orders of the State Commission on similar grounds. For the purpose of ready reference, the facts in Writ Petition No.27689 of 2010 can be summarized below.

7. The petitioner company started a new venture at Bachupally under the name and style of Maytas Hill County. The 2nd and 3rd respondents approached the 1'1 petitioner for purchasing Flats in the said Maytas Hill County Project. The 2nd and 3rd respondents agreed to purchase the flats. According to the petitioners, there was delay in completing the Hill Country Project because of the major events which are beyond the control of the opposite parties. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, issued notice on 14-12-2009 and thereupon the 1st petitioner invoked the arbitration clause provided in the agreement of sale dated 27-12-2006 between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd respondents and referred such disputes and claims made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein to arbitration by a retired High Court Judge, who has entered upon Arbitration vide Arbitration Cases and the same have been posted for the appearance of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to 7-4-2010.

8. Having received the notice from the sole Arbitrator the 2nd and 3rd respondents have approached the 1st respondent Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and filed C.C.No.19 of 2010 seeking a direction against the petitioners to handover the finished flat or to refund the amount paid by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

9. The petitioners on receipt of the notice to file written version, have filed an application in I.A.No.1910 of 2010 in CC No.19 of 2010 before the 1st respondent Commission under Section 8 of the Arbitration