JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Monteiro, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Respondent no.2 is a formal party and as such, notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with. 2. Rule. By consent of learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 18/7/2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji in Complaint No.06/2011 by which application for interim relief dated 14/7/2011 filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed. 4. The petitioner bank is a Co-operative Society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that property of respondent no.1 was attached in execution of an award passed against him and the same was sought to be sold in public auction by notice dated 6/5/2011. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji and sought an injunction against the bank from proceeding with the auction fixed on 7/6/2011 which was granted. Thereafter, the bank by fresh notice dated 16/6/2011 fixed the auction of the said property on 19/7/2011. The respondent no.1 filed another application seeking to injunct the bank from holding the auction on 19/7/2011 or any time thereafter. The petitioner filed its reply, inter alia, contending that under Sections 34 and 35 of the Secutarization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the complaint itself was not maintainable and that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the impugned order allowed the application for interim relief filed by the respondent no.1. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has not dealt with the objection taken by the petitioner that the interim relief was not available to the petitioner, more particularly under Sections 34 and 35 of the Act. It was mandatory for the State Commission to deal with the said aspect since jurisdiction of the State Commission to grant any interim relief was challenged. It was mandatory for the State Commission to deal with the said aspect since jurisdiction of the State Commission to grant any interim relief was challenged. When jurisdiction of a Court/Tribunal to deal with the matter is challenged on the ground that its jurisdiction is ousted under provisions of a statute, it is obligatory for the Court/Tribunal to deal with the objection before dealing with the matter on merits. This exercise admittedly has not been done by the State Commission. The State Commission has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. On this count alone, the impugned order is liable to quashed and set aside. 6. In view of the above, order dated 18/7/2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji for fresh decision. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall decide the application dated 14/7/2011 and pass a fresh order dealing with all the contentions of the petitioner as well as respondent no.1. Needless to mention that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is bound to give reasons while passing the order disposing of the application dated 14/7/2011. Considering the nature of relief sought, the State Commission shall dispose of the application expeditiously and in any case within a period of 30 days from the date of appearance. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 7/9/2011 at 10.30 a.m. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.