ORDER : Dr. Arijit Pasayat and L.S. Panta, JJ. - The basic issue involved in these appeals is whether a person under the purported cover of being an "agent" can represent large number of persons before the forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") and the Rules made thereunder. According to the appellant, the rule relating to agents cannot be used for bypassing stipulations under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in short "the Advocates Act"), more particularly under Sections 29, 31 and 32. 2. Rule 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (in short "the Rules") defines an "agent" as under: "2. (b) 'agent' means a person duly authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before the National Commission;" Similarly, Rules 14(1) and 14(3) also deal with the acts which an agent can undertake. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 2006 (R.D. Nagpal v. Vijay Dutt, 2011 (12) SCC 498 ) this Court has accepted the stand that even a doctor if authorised by a party can cross-examine the complainant. So far as individual cases are concerned, they may not present difficulty. But the question is whether somebody who is not a legal practitioner, can represent large number of parties before their forums thereby frustrating the objects embodied in the Advocates Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that a large number of persons who are otherwise not entitled to appear before the forums are doing so under the garb of being an agent. 4. As the matter is of great importance, we refer the same to a larger Bench. Papers may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that necessary orders can be passed for placing these matters before the appropriate Bench.