1. The petitioner Bank challenges an interim order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in Ext.P4 complaint filed by respondents 1 and 2, restraining and prohibiting the petitioner from taking auction proceedings of sale and other proceedings against the respondents 2 and 3, pursuant to a notice issued by the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), for recovery of loan amounts due under a loan given to the respondents 2 and 3, on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 have made out a prima facie case against the petitioner and there is a consumer dispute. According to the petitioner, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF) has no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

"a) quash Ext.P3 order by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

b) issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding further with Ext.P4 petition.

c) declare that the 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P4 petition."

2. The respondents 2 & 3 oppose the prayers of the petitioner on the ground that since there is a consumer dispute involving deficiency in service of the petitioner and banking comes within the purview of 'service' as defined in Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, the CDRF has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding deficiency in service of the petitioner Bank, notwithstanding the SARFAESI Act, in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At first blush the argument of the respondents on the basis of the definition of 'service' in Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, read with Section 3 thereof, stipulating that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, sounds attractive. But the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to interfere with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act has to appreciated in the light of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the object and purpose of that Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the primacy of the Act, even in relation to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. At the outset certain obvious facts are to be noted, which are as follows:

(a) The Consumer Protection Act is a general enactment and the SARFAESI Act is a special enactment.

(b) The Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1986, whereas the SARFAESI Act was enacted in 2002.

(c) Under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, jurisdiction of the civil courts for entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by the said Act to determine is barred and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act.

(d) Under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of the said Act is to have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.

(e) The SARFAESI Act is a comprehensive law providing for all aspects relating to the subject dealt with by that legislation and the Act provides to persons aggrieved by measures taken under the Act a remedy by way of challenging the action taken under the Act before a quasi judicial authority, namely, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, with a right to file a further appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, making the legislation a