AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.A. Swami, C.J.—This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.6.1994 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. 10283/94. In the
writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 26th April, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Madras, in O.P. 445 of 1993 deciding the preliminary question as to jurisdiction of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. It has
been held that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised before it. Learned single judge has
rejected the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is appealable and an appeal
lies to the national forum. We are of the view that it is not necessary to decide the question as to whether an appeal lies or not, as it is for the
national forum to decide Secondly, it is not the stage at which interference is called for. What has been decided by the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission is about its jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. If ultimately, the Commission holds on merits against the petitioner, it would
be open to him to challenge not only the order passed on merits, but also the order dated 26th April, 1994 holding that it has jurisdiction to
entertain the dispute. Any order passed during the pendency of the proceeding connected with the main matter and that too, the order relating to
maintainability, does not become final, merely because it is not challenged before the main case is decided. It becomes part of the final decision and
it would be open to the party who has challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission, to challenge the correctness of that order also in the appeal to
be preferred against the final order. Hence, we are of the view that the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and before us need not be considered
at this stage. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned single Judge holding that the appeal lies, is modified and we dismiss the writ petition for
the reasons stated by us and not on the reasons stated by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.