1. In this writ petition, by order dated 12/03/2010 notice was ordered to be served on the respondent by special messenger. Accordingly, notice specifying 17/03/2010 as the date of hearing, was served on him. However, when the case was taken up on 17/03/2010, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent, and therefore, the case was adjourned to today and today also, there is no appearance on his behalf. Therefore, the writ petition was heard finally.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed CC No.11/2010 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as CDRF for short) complaining that the petitioner herein is collecting Rs.500/- each as parking fees from the customers, who park their vehicles in the car parking area of her shop, Seematti Textiles, Ernakulam. It is also alleged that the amount collected is not refunded to those do not buy goods from her shop. According to the respondent, this practice is a Restrictive Trade Practice and Unfair Trade Practice as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the complaint, the respondent herein sought directions to the petitioner, to refund Rs.500/- collected from him with 12% interest, to declare that the collection of parking fee is an unfair and restrictive trade practice, and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. A copy of the complaint is Ext.P1.Along with the complaint, I.A.No.14/2010, a copy of which is Ext.P2, was also filed praying for a direction to the petitioner to refrain from collecting parking fee @ Rs.500/-.

3. In I.A.No.14/2010, the CDRF passed Ext.P3 exparte order dated 11/01/2010 directing the petitioner to forthwith refrain from levying parking fee from the customers, who visit her shop. On being served notice, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit justifying the levy of parking fee. The matter was heard and Ext.P5 order dated 03/02/2010 was passed by the CDRF, holding that it is of the considered view that the practice of levying Rs.500/-, under whatever name, is illegal and unreasonable. Taking into account the submissions made, Ext.P3 interim order was modified permitting the petitioner to levy an amount not more than Rs.50/- as parking charges till the disposal of the complaint.

4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.3/2010 before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission disposed of the revision by Ext.P6 order permitting the petitioner to levy Rs.250/-as parking fee till the disposal of Ext.P1 complaint, and with a further direction to refund the amount to the consumers, after they visit the shop. It is aggrieved by Exts.P5 & P6 orders, this writ petition is filed, praying to quash these orders and to declare that the practice of levying parking fee does not amount to restrictive trade practice or unfair trade practice as defined under Sections 2(1) (nnn) and 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. The prayer of the petitioner to declare that the levy of parking fee will not amount to a restrictive trade practice or unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is premature. The CDRF, Ernakulam, which is seized of the complaint, is yet to finally pronounce on the contentions of the parties. Even if the issue is finally decided against the petitioner, statute provides for remedies, and therefore, the petitioner will have to await the final disposal of the complaint and pursue her remedies. For that reason, I decline to examine the merits of the complaint or the aforesaid prayer sought in this writ petition.

6. What remains is the correctness or otherwise of Exts.P5 & P6, the interlocutory order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam and the order passed by the State Commission. As already seen, one of the main prayers sought in Ext.P1 complaint is to declare that the levy of parking fee @ Rs.500/-is an unfair and restrictive trade practice. In I.A.No