The State Commission does not have the jurisdiction to pass any interim order or even ad-interim order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The presence of the President of the Commission is mandatory for conducting any proceeding and his signature in the order is a must.

Samaresh Benerjea, J.—In the instant writ application the writ petitioner-Company has challenged the ad interim order dated 28th June, 1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal being the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to the State Commission), on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction of the State Commission to pass such order. By the aforesaid ad-interim order, the State Commission restrained the petitioner Company from selling their product of toilet soaps, detergent etc. in the India market and abroad till disposal of the case.

2. The main challenge of the petitioners of the aforesaid ad-interim order is on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction of the State Commission to pass interim order.

3. The other main ground of challenge is that the said order is void as the order was not passed and signed by the President of the Commission but only by the other two members. In course of hearing it was admitted by the parties that the proceedings in question was initiated and the aforesaid order was passed by the two members of the State Commission in absence of the President who has reportedly not been attending the Commission being out of the station.

4. When the writ petition was moved, prima facie being satisfied that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction as the State Commission does not have the power to pass any interim order or ad-interim order, following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartik Das reported in II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC)=1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases, page 225 and the case of In Re : State Transport Authority, reported in 1991(2) Calcutta High Court Notes, page 131, an interim order for a limited period was granted on 30th June, 1995 after dispension of service under Rule 27 because of the urgency of the situation. The respondent No. 2 thereafter appeared through its learned Advocate and opposed the prayer to extend the interim order contending, inter alia, that the writ application is not maintainable because of existence of alternative remedy of appeal under Consumers Protection Act, 1986 itself.

5. In course of such hearing both the parties agreed that since only pure questions of law are involved in the writ petition the same itself can be disposed of on merits without any affidavits and accordingly both the parties addressed the Court in full on the aforesaid questions of law and also submitted the written notes of argument.

6. But before going into the merits of the case it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary objection which has been raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been contended by the respondent, inter alia, because of presence of alternative remedy under the Consumers Protection Act, i986 by way of appeal and the said Act being a complete Code itself and the Appellant Authority under the said Act being also competent to go into the question of jurisdiction, the petitioners cannot maintain the present writ petition. In support of their submissions the respondents, inter alia, have relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court presided over the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Chief Justice, as His Lordship was there, in the case of Smt. Saswati Mehrotra (Nee Mukhopadhyay) v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 1994 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes page 167, and decision of Satyabrata Sinha, J. in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank and Ors. v. President, Distt., Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) Calcutta Law Journal, page 169. In the aforesaid Division Bench decision it has been held, inter alia, because of provisions of alternative remedy in the Consumer Protection Act, the Writ Court should not ordinarily interfere with an order of the Consumer Forum and the practice to move the writ Court against every order of the Forum “at the drop of hat” is to be discouraged. In the case of Grindlays Bank