Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr. C.N. Radhakrishnan for the appellants and Mr. S. James Vincent for second respondent.

2. The petitioners 2 to 3 in the Original Petition are the appellants in this appeal. The second respondent is a subscriber of a telephone. Consequent to the introduction of Electronic Exchange, the outstanding dues in respect of telephones were finalised and it was found that two telephone bills dated 11.2.1992 for Rs. 350/- and bill dated 11.4.1992 for Rs. 454/- were found to be outstanding against the second respondent's telephone. The second respondent, like other subscribers, was also issued notice under Ext. P3 dated 30.11.1995 requesting for payment of outstanding dues by 11.12.1995 so as to avoid disconnection of the telephone. Since the second respondent did not clear the arrears, the second appellant issued instruction under Ext. P4 to make verification of payment and disconnect the telephone. The telephone was disconnected on 15.12.1995 as provided under R.443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Telegraph Rules". According to the second respondent, he had not received the bills mentioned in Ext. P3 disconnection notice. On 26.12.1995, the second respondent, who is stated to be an advocate, trespassed into the Telephone Exchange office and manhandled the staff and in order to avoid legal consequences, got Crime No. 247/1995 registered at Police Station, Vizhinjam. The staff of the Telephone Exchange have also made a complaint to the Vizhinjam Police and Crime No. 248/1995 was registered.

3. The second respondent filed O.P. 399/1996 under Ext. P5 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, hereinafter referred to as "the Forum", alleging inter alia that he had been getting excess telephone bills and there was no replies received from the Department to his complaints and legal notices; his telephone was disconnected on 15.12.1995 without notice; and disconnection of telephone amounted to deficiency of service on the part of the Telecom Department. He prayed for orders to restore the telephone connection without payment of any reconnection fee, penalty, additional deposit and monthly rent due from the date of disconnection. He also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for the inconvenience and other hardships alleged to have been faced by him.

4. The first respondent- the Forum - issued a notice to the appellants, who filed objections under Ext. P6 on 2.9.1996, raising various questions of law regarding the maintainability of the complaint and requested the Forum to decline jurisdiction as per law and on the basis of various rulings of the Supreme Court. The Forum by its order dated 4.12.1997 held that the complaint cannot be said to be not maintainable as alleged by the Department. The appellants thereupon filed the Original Petition in this Court to quash Ext. P7 order and to prohibit the Forum from continuing with further proceedings in O.P. 399/1996 on the basis of Ext. P5 complaint and for other consequential reliefs.

5. The Original Petition was admitted on 11.7.1997. It is also alleged that a plain reading of Ext. P5 complaint would indicate that the complaint was frivolous and not maintainable and hence the Forum should have dismissed the same as provided under S.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as "the Consumer Protection Act". In the Writ Petition filed before this Court several contentions were raised by the Department and several decisions of the< Supreme Court were also relied on to show that such proceedings have been entertained by the Forum contrary to S.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, hereinafter referred to as "the Telegraph Act" and various rulings of the Supreme Court of India. It is also alleged that the findings contained in Ext. P7 order of the Forum are contrary to facts and laws and vitiated by improper application of mind. It is also submitted that no claim for compensation