JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is a licensee for drawing up of building plans etc. and he is running his business under the name and style of 'Sarvathra Builders' in Manjeri. Third respondent herein approached the petitioner for preparation and submission of a building plan and sketch, Petitioner supervised foundation and construction of the building. A portion of the building in second floor of the building collapsed after the construction and the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent which was numbered as O. P. No. 10 of 1995 claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs against the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent with whom allegedly a contract was engaged by the 3rd respondent for construction of the residential building. Ext. P3 is the complaint filed before the 1st respondent State Commission. Petitioner filed his version by Ext. P4. Petitioner also raised a contention regarding maintainability of the petition. According to the petitioner, it should be relegated to the Civil Court as that alone has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. He also contended that it is not a consumer dispute to be tried under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, questions like fraud, contractual stipulations and obligations etc. has to be borne into. A separate petition for trying the preliminary point regarding the question of maintainability was also filed as can be seen from Ext. P5. 1st respondent State Commission rejected Ext. P5 petition and held that the complaint is maintainable. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent National Commission as can be seen from Ext. P6 and it was numbered as Appeal No. 1.4 of 1996. According to the petitioner, despite the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent National Commission, the 1st respondent State Commission is proceeding with the case. Petitioner filed several representations before the State Commission that without hearing the appeal, State Commission should not proceed with the matter and proceedings should be kept in abeyance. 2nd respondent National Commission informed the petitioner that the appeal cannot be posted for hearing early; but, can be posted only in the normal course as can be seen from Ext. P10. In these circumstances, petitioner filed this Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to take up for enquiry and disposal Ext. P3 complaint until Ext. P10. In these circumstances, petitioner filed this Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to take up for enquiry and disposal Ext. P3 complaint until Ext. P6 appeal is finally disposed of and directing the 1st respondent to pass orders staying all further proceeding until Ext. P6 appeal is finally disposed of. 2. It is not stated by the petitioner that he has filed a stay petition alongwith the appeal before the National Commission. After elaborate hearing of arguments on both sides, the State Commission held that there is jurisdiction for the Commission to go with the subject matter. Order of the State Commission from which Ext. P6 appeal is filed was not produced before this Court. As the order is not produced, the reasoning of the Commission held that complaint is maintainable cannot be considered by this Court. Normally, if the complaint is held to be maintainable, the State Commission is bound to consider and dispose of the complaint on merits. Final order passed by the Commission can also be challenged by the petitioner without prejudice to his contention that the complaint itself is maintainable. Whether there is any extraordinary circumstances for this Court to interfere ia the proceedings of the Commission and whether this Court, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, will be justified in interfering in a proceeding under the Act pending before the State Commission are the questions to be considered in this case. 3. In the decision reported in A. V. Georgekutty v. State of Kerala and others AIR 1994 Kerala 19 it was held that the Consumer Protection Act has created a hierarchy of bodies under the Act with the power to hear appeals at every stage. The intention of the Legislature appears to be that the District Forum or the State Commission as well as the National Commission should be allowed to perform their duties speedily and without any interruption. The Presiding Officers of these bodies, having worked for a long period as either District Judges or High Court Judges, are fully experienced to decide questions of jurisdiction, however complicated. Such bodies are entitled to decide whether they have jurisdiction to decide a dispute and whether the complainant before them is a consumer or not within S.2(d). The Presiding Officers of these bodies, having worked for a long period as either District Judges or High Court Judges, are fully experienced to decide questions of jurisdiction, however complicated. Such bodies are entitled to decide whether they have jurisdiction to decide a dispute and whether the complainant before them is a consumer or not within S.2(d). The intention of Parliament will be defeated if initially objections as to jurisdiction are permitted to be raised before the High Court under Art.226. There may indeed be rare cases which are expressly excluded by the every provisions of the Consumer Protection Act or other rare cases which may warrant interference by the High Court. But that should be a rare exception and not the rule. 4. It was contended by the petitioner that it is a case where jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised as the State Commission has held that the complaint is maintainable. The above decision is clearly wrong and there is a prima facie case for the petitioner for allowing the appeal pending before the National Commission and, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings before the National Commission. It was also pointed out that in the decision reported in Registrar, University of Madras and another v. Union of India and others 1996 C.C.J. 668 it was held that if the Court has no jurisdiction at all, the High Court will be justified in interfering with the proceedings of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. There is no dispute that if there is miscarriage of justice and if there is complete jurisdictional error, this Court may, in appropriate cases, interfere with the proceedings. But, in this case, the order which is challenged before the National Commission is not produced here. It is not shown that the State Commission has considered the question of maintainability so erroneously so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court. To consider whether it is a case where this Court will interfere as one of the rarest of rare cases as held by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner did not produce the copy of the order of the State Commission. According to the petitioner, since complicated issues are there, the matter has to be referred to the Civil Court. However, it is for the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to decide that question. According to the petitioner, since complicated issues are there, the matter has to be referred to the Civil Court. However, it is for the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to decide that question. Apparently, in the inclusive definition of 'service', 'housing construction' is specifically included. In the decision reported in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others (1995) 6 SCC 651 the Supreme Court has defined the parameters where jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums can be exercised. 5. It was held in the decision reported in Padmanabhan v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum 1991 (2) KLT 367 that challenge as to the jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should be raised in the Forum itself. The High Court is not a Statutory appellate or revisional authority under the provisions of the Act. An order passed by the State Commission is appealable before the National Commission under S.19 of the Act and the order of the National Commission can be challenged in appeal only before the Supreme Court. The fact that the High Court is not a statutory forum whereas Supreme Court is a statutory forum from which appeal from the National Commission is to be taken into account. Remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution can be resorted to only in the absence of alternate efficacious remedies. It may also be pointed out that in the decision reported in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 S.C. C. 583 it was held by the Supreme Court that the Forums/Commissions under the Act have jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint before them is a 'consumer' and whether he has made out grounds for grand of relief. Even if the Forum decides the said questions wrongly, their orders made following the procedure prescribed in the Statute cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. They can and must be questioned only in the manner provided under the Act. These are quasi judicial tribunals to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to the consumers. It cannot be interfered by the High Court unless there are compelling circumstances and it cannot be used in a case like this especially where the order under attack is not produced. 6. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner himself questioned the maintainability of the case and the question of jurisdiction before the State Commission and the State Commission held against the petitioner. 6. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner himself questioned the maintainability of the case and the question of jurisdiction before the State Commission and the State Commission held against the petitioner. He has filed an appeal in the National Commission and the appeal before the National Commission is pending. Appeal from the National Commission is maintainable only in the Supreme Court. This court cannot issue any directions to the National Commission. According to the petitioner, National Commission has no power to issue a stay order. In the decision reported in Gulfan Lal Agarwal v. The Accounts Officer J.T. 1996 (9) SC 103 it was held that interim orders cannot be passed pending disposal of the original complaint. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Morgan Stanely Mutul Fund v. Kartick Das J.T. 1994 (3) S.C. 654. There, the Supreme Court held that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction or power to pass any interim order pending disposal of the original complaint. It is different from power of stay which can be issued by the appellate forum. When State Forum passes an order, an appeal will lie to the National Forum. Being an appellate authority it has got inherent power to stay the operation of the order of the State Forum pending disposal of the appeal if there is a prima facie case and circumstances warrant. Even though there is no express power to grant stay under the Act. A similar question was considered by the Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in Income Tax Officer v. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi A.I R.1969 S.C. 430. There, the question that was considered was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has got power to issue a stay when appeal is filed. There, it was held that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. The powers which have been conferred on the appellate tribunal with widest possible amplitude must carry with them by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. It was held by the Supreme Court that the appellate tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. 7. It was held by the Supreme Court that the appellate tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. 7. When appellate jurisdiction is conferred on State Forum from the decisions of District Forum and on National Forum from the decisions of State Forum, it impliedly grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution and that the statutory power carries with it the duty in proper cases to make such orders or staying proceedings of lower authorities as to prevent the appeal if successful from being rendered nugatory. But, the power of stay by the Appellate Authority or Forum is not lightly to be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course. It will only be when a strong prima facie case is made out that the appellate forum will consider whether stay of the order of the lower authorities is necessary or not. In this Case, it is not contended that a stay petition was filed by the petitioner before the National Forum along with the appeal. Since the State Commission has found that the complaint is maintainable, the Stale Commission has got a duly to proceed with the dispute as the Act enables the consumers for having a speedy remedy. In the absence of stay, the Commission is bound to proceed with the dispute. However, if the decision is against the petitioner, the petitioner will be free to challenge that also in appeal. In such circumstances, staying of the proceedings of the State Commission under Art.226 of the Constitution pending disposal of the appeal before the National Commission will not be justified. I am not considering the question whether the dispute now pending before the State Commission is maintainable or not as the matter is pending before the National Commission and the order of the State Commission which held that the dispute is maintainable is not produced before this Court. In any view of the matter, a speedy and efficacious remedy provided to the consumer under the Act cannot be interfered by this Court at every stage of the proceedings. In view of the above, the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed and I dismiss the Original Petition with costs.