The High Court should not interfere with the proceedings of the State Commission except for compelling reasons, and the determination of jurisdiction involves questions of fact to be decided by the State Commission.

1. A complaint has been filed by the respondent No. 3 against the appellant and another before the State commission constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 alleging some consumer dispute. The Commission took cognizance of the matter and was proceeding with the same when the appellant, who was one of the opposite parties, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution urging that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The appellant could not succeed before the learned trial Judge and has accordingly moved us in appeal and has strenuously contended that the alleged complaint could not be taken cognizance of by the State Commission.

2. THE State Commission, like any other Tribunal, has obviously all the jurisdiction to decide about its own jurisdiction. We have taken note of the fact that the State Commissions are to be presided over by one who has been or is a Judge of the High Court. A Tribunal of that status can obviously be trusted to decide the question of jurisdiction, if raised, in a judicial manner and in accordance with law. Therefore, unless there is a compelling necessity the High Court should not take upon itself the burden of deciding the question of jurisdiction of the Commission without giving the Commission a reasonable opportunity of deciding that question. We do not say, as we cannot, that the High Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the jurisdiction of the state Commission. But when the State Commission is in seisin of a matter, the tendency of the parties to rush to the High Court at every drop of a hat must be discouraged. As the remedy on the question of jurisdiction is readily, adequately and also effectively available before the State Commission, we should ordinarily refuse to entertain such a question by-passing that Commission. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') is a social welfare legislation enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumers and different redressal forums have been established under the said Act for settlement of consumer disputes. The legislature having enacted such a legislation for speedy solution of the disputes of the consumers for the benefit of the people at large, we owe it to the people to allow these forums to function as far as possible without avoidable interdiction on our part. Ms. Supama Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tulasi Enterprises vs. Andhra Pradesh State Commission (AIR 1991 AP 326) which clearly supports the view that we are taking.

3. MR. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellant has, however, relied on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Calcutta Metropolitan Development authority vs. Union of India (1993 - 2 Consumer Protection Reporter 177) and has urged that the Writ Court is entitled to entertain the writ petition and to determine the question of jurisdiction of the concerned authority. We have never said that the Writ Court cannot, and all that we have said is that the Writ Court should not in view of the facts and circumstances of the case When the Legislature has constituted a hierarchy of tribunals with provisions for appeal to the Supreme Court. the high court should not interfere with the proceedings of such Tribunal except for compelling reason as where clear absence of jurisdiction is obviously apparent on the fact of the record on the admitted facts and without any dispute. To borrow from Shakespeare, the writ Court may have giant's power, but should not use it as a giant, As will appear hereinafter, the determination of the question of the jurisdiction would involve a number of questions of fact with can be more adequately and effectively decided by the State Commission on evidence.

4. IT appears that a recent Division Bench of the Kerala High Court