G. Rohini, J.

The short question that requires consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the penal proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for failure to comply with an order of the State Commission can be maintained while the appeal against the order of State Commission is pending before the National Commission?

The petitioner in all the writ petitions is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is stated that the said company is engaged in the business of property development and it had undertaken the development of a township called “The Hill County”. The respondents in the writ petitions who claim to have purchased residential apartments in the above said township filed Complaints before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘State Commission’) alleging that the petitioner had failed to complete the said project and seeking a direction for refund of the amount advanced by them together with interest. The said Complaints (C.C.No.40 of 2011 & etc.) were allowed by the State Commission on different dates. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred appeals before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’) which are pending.

While so, the respondents herein filed applications under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the State Commission with a prayer to punish the writ petitioner for its failure to comply with the orders of the State Commission in spite of the fact that the time granted had expired long back. In the said applications (E.A.No.18 of 2012 & etc.) the State Commission had initially directed notice to the writ petitioner and subsequently bailable warrants were issued for ensuring the personal appearance of the writ petitioner. Challenging the said orders, the writ petitioner preferred Revision Petitions before the National Commission. By order dated 19.10.2012 the National Commission allowed the Revision Petitions, however it was observed that an order can be passed by the State Commission requiring the petitioner to be present in person if the presence of the petitioner was required. Thereafter the writ petitioner filed applications (E.A.No.2485 of 2012 & etc.) before the State Commission raising an objection as to the very maintainability of the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act and thus praying to reject all the applications filed under Section 27 as not maintainable.

That apart, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34850 of 2012 & etc., seeking a Writ of Prohibition restraining the State Commission from continuing the proceedings under Section 27 of the Act contending that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications under Section 27 of the Act as the appeals against the orders of the State Commission in C.C.No.40 of 2011 are pending before the National Commission.

The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 14.11.2012 with a direction to the State Commission to dispose of E.A.I.A.No.2485 of 2012 & etc., in which the petitioner prayed for rejecting the applications filed under Section 27 of the Act as not maintainable, within three weeks. It was also directed that the personal appearance of the writ petitioner before the State Commission should not be insisted upon till such orders were passed.

In pursuance thereof, the State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed E.A.I.A.No.2485 of 2012 & etc by common order dated 21.01.2013. Hence these writ petitions seeking Certiorari to call for the records relating to the said common order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the State Commission, and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

We have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior counsel representing Sri Avinash Desai and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and perused the mat