G. Sivarajan, J. The matter arises under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question arising for consideration is as to whether the State Commission functioning under the Act has got the power to transfer a case pending before one District Forum to another District Forum within the State.

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent in O. P. No. 612 of 1999 filed by the 3rd respondent herein before the second respondent. Alleging that the President of the second respondent Forum is prejudiced against the petitioner it filed transfer O. P. No. 2 of 2000 before the first respondent praying for transfer of O. P. No. 612 of 1999 pending before the second respondent to any other District Forum in the State of Kerala. The State Commission dismissed the said petition on the ground that the Act does not contain any provision conferring jurisdiction on the State Commission for the transfer of a complaint from one District Forum to another. The petitioner challenges the Order passed by the State Commission. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the State Commission established under S.9(b) of the Act has the jurisdiction to transfer a complaint from a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) to another District Forum. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to transfer O. P. No. 612 of 1999 pending before the second respondent to any other District Forum in the State of Kerala.

3. Sri. K. T. Sankaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the StateCommission has got administrative control over all the District Forums within its jurisdiction in regard to the matters specified in S.24B which includes the power to transfer a case in appropriate cases. He took me to the relevant provisions of the Act and also the decisions of this court in Bhargavi Amma v. Ouseph Varkey, 1967 KLT 317, Gopalan Bhavani v. Raghavan Aravindakshan, 1989 (2) KLT 118 and in Cheru Ouseph v. Kunjipathumma, 1981 KLT 495 in support of the above. The Counsel submits that though the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to the transfer of cases are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Act in the absence of any prohibition in the Act the power to transfer cases in appropriate circumstances, must be deemed to in her in the State Commission. He also submitted that such a power is absolutely necessary to ensure justice to the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the reason stated by the petitioner for getting O. P. No. 612/1999 pending before the District Forum, Kozhikode transferred to any other District Forum is only flimsy and that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to seek such a transfer. He also submits that the Forums constituted under the Act have to act strictly within the powers conferred to them under the said Act itself. The counsel further submitted that the first respondent Commission was fully justified in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the Commission has no power to transfer a case pending before on District Forum to another.

5. The Act, as could be seen from the preamble itself, is enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes and for matters connected therewith. S.9 of the Act provides for establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. They are (1) A Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum known as "District Forum" established by the State Government in each District by notification, (2) a Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission known as "State Commission" and (3) A National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission established by the Central Government by notification. S.10 of the Act provides the composition of the District Forum. It consists of a President and t