JUDGMENT S.A. BOBDE, J. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Member, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, Nagpur Circuit Bench, dated 15.9.2009, rejecting petitioner's application for stay, against the order dated 9.4.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had directed the petitioner to remove the deficiency in construction as per the Commissioner's report in terms of the agreement and complete the balance work within a period of 3 months. 2. Initially the petitioner had moved the learned Single Member of the Bench of the State Commission, who granted ad-interim stay. This power was exercised by the learned Single Member pursuant to the office order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, empowering the Single Member to pass formal miscellaneous orders. After the learned Single Member ordered issuance of notice to respondents and granted ad-interim stay. Respondents appeared and filed their reply. The ad-interim stay was extended from time to time and the application for stay was heard on merits. 3. In the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he is willing to obey the order of the District Forum. 4. Apparently Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the learned Single Member of the State Commission could not have exercised the power. It is undisputed that at the relevant time all the posts of the State Commission had not been filed up and therefore, that the power was conferred by the President on the learned Single Member. In any case we find no want of jurisdiction in view of section 16(1)(B)(ii) of the Act which empowers the President of the State Commission to confer the powers on a learned Single Member. We thus see no want of jurisdiction or power in the learned Single Member. 5. In any case the petitioner does not appear to have had any objection to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Member when he approached the learned Single Member for ad-interim stay which was granted. It appears that petitioner thought it fit to raise point of jurisdiction only after his application for stay has been rejected. 5. In any case the petitioner does not appear to have had any objection to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Member when he approached the learned Single Member for ad-interim stay which was granted. It appears that petitioner thought it fit to raise point of jurisdiction only after his application for stay has been rejected. In any case the office order dated 29.5.2009 only restricts the Single Member from deciding the main complaint and not miscellaneous matters like stay application. 6. We are informed by Shri Sambre, learned Government pleader that a Judicial Member has now been appointed to the State Commission for taking up the matters at Nagpur and that Judicial Member has taken charge. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order or entertain the present petition. Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.