JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission) to expeditiously dispose of the complaints, filed by the petitioner, which have been pending for over two years.

2. It is contended that repeated adjournments have been given by the National Commission to the respondents to file written statements/written submissions, which has led to delay in disposal of the petitions.

3. Petitioner has prayed that direction be issued to the National Commission for early time bound disposal of the complaints and not to grant any further adjournment at the request of either of the parties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petitions.

5. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that as the subject petitions seek directions with regard to proceedings emanating from original complaints filed before the National Commission, and all orders of the National Commission passed in exercise of its original jurisdiction would be appealable to the Supreme Court of India under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable before the High Court. Further, it is contented that the orders of the National Commission are mere procedural orders same do not warrant any interference of this court.

6. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 the Constitution of India should interfere in a matter of the present nature.

7. Section 23 of the Act lays down as under:

"23. Appeal.-Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:

Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or rupees fifty thousand, whichever is less."

8. Section 21(a)(i) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the National Commission to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore.

9. Section 21(a)(i) of the Act confers original jurisdiction on the National Commission in addition to the appellate jurisdiction exercised by it under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act and the revisional jurisdiction exercised by it under Section 21(b) of the Act.

10. Section 23 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i) of the Act.

11. It is only in cases where the National Commission passes an order in exercise of its original jurisdiction that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court and not from an order passed in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

12. Section 23 of the Act does not qualify as to the nature of order against which an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court. So appeal to the Supreme Court, under Section 23 of the Act, would lie not only against a final order of the National Commission but also against an interim order passed by the National Commission in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

13. The Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 has held as under:

"6. The right of appeal is a statuto