JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. — The petitioner, Paradip Port Trust represented through its Chairman, is before this Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the first opposite party, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack, hereinafter called ‘the Commission’ at the instance of opposite party no.2, namely, Paradip Port Dock and Construction Worker’s Union represented by its General Secretary, hereinafter called in short, the Trade Union, urging various facts and legal contentions. 2.According to the petitioner, it is a Statutory Authority and a Major Port under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, It is under the direct administrative control of the Central Government Ministry of Shipping. 3.This matter was listed for preliminary hearing on 9.3.2011. As the second respondent had entered caveat and copy of the writ petition was not served, this matter was listed today for preliminary hearing along with the petition for stay. 4.We have heard Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel for the second opposite party at length. 5.Since the first opposite party is a formal party, notice to the said opposite party is dispensed with. 6.The impugned order is passed at the instance of the second opposite party in the lis between the petitioner and the second opposite party. Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint petition before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack on 29.6.2009 seeking the following reliefs: (i)To pass an order restraining the monopolistic approach of the Paradip Port Trust in providing Cable T.V. Network Service to the subscribers, who are the bona fide consumers and (ii)To hold that the action of the opposite party in the said complaint petition is illegal, unfair and unjustified and further direct not to work-out the present tender notice under Annexure-6 till inclusion of omitted pay channels and for grant of compensation and other consequential relief urging various facts. 7.It would be necessary for us to refer to the omitted channels and according to opposite party no.2 the same are stated at Annexure-7 at page-47, namely, Star Cricket, Star Sports, ESPN and Taranga (Oriya) which channels are very much necessary. Therefore, it is stated by opposite party no.2 that he is a complainant coming within the definition of Section-2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Members of the Trade Union are subscribers to the Cable T.V. channels service provider. Therefore, it is stated by opposite party no.2 that he is a complainant coming within the definition of Section-2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the Members of the Trade Union are subscribers to the Cable T.V. channels service provider. Therefore, they are all consumers. They can maintain the complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack. 8.Our attention was also drawn to paragraph-11 of the complaint filed before the Commission to substantiate the justification of filing a complaint by opposite party no.2 in the capacity of General Secretary of the Trade Union as he represents its members being a collective bargaining agent. The Paradip Port Trust has got every right and liberty to introduce new operators in the field of Cable T.V. Network for which the complainant has nothing to object, but the legitimate expectation of the consumers/subscribers of Cable T.V. Network should not be curtailed by means of monopolist, unfair and arbitrary action so far as continuance of Cable T.V. Network in the operation area is concerned and there should not be deficiency in service in this regard affecting the interest of large number of subscribers. 9.Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the tender advertisement published on 1.4.2009 inviting eligible applicants to apply for award of the contract to supply the Cable T.V. Channels to the subscribers/residents of Paradip Port Trust. Paradip Port Trust being a security zone, outsiders cannot be permitted without permission of the Paradip Port Trust. Therefore, it has to maintain transparency in awarding the contract as it is an authority under Article-12 of the Constitution of India and the Transparency Act is applicable to it. The date on which the complaint was filed by opposite party no.2, the tender process, both Technical and Financial Bid process was over. One service operator M/s. Manthan Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd. was declared as L-I and M/s. Ortel Communicated Ltd. as L-II. After that stage, opposite party no.2 cannot file a complaint before the State Commission. It is stated that after the proceedings of the Paradip Port Trust declaring L-I and L-II, another disqualified applicant approached this Court by filing Writ petition No.9134 of 2009 and M/s. Ortel Communication Ltd. filed Writ Petition No.10386 of 2009 seeking for certain reliefs in said proceedings. It is stated that after the proceedings of the Paradip Port Trust declaring L-I and L-II, another disqualified applicant approached this Court by filing Writ petition No.9134 of 2009 and M/s. Ortel Communication Ltd. filed Writ Petition No.10386 of 2009 seeking for certain reliefs in said proceedings. This Court passed an order on 12.5.2010 in both the aforesaid writ petitions on merits after considering the rival legal contentions urged in those cases and disposed of the writ petitions with the following direction contained at paragraph-14 of the order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below: “Therefore this Court feels that Paradip Port Trust Authorities would grant 10 days time to “Manthan” to satisfy the Port Trust that it is capable or has permission to telecast all the channels which it is otherwise required to telecast, i.e., 60 channels and 40 pay channels. In the event it fails to do so within the time stipulated above, necessary steps shall be taken for annulling the decision and no agreement shall be executed.” 10.The aforesaid order passed by this Court in the above referred writ petitions has become final. It is further submitted that opposite party no.1, in the earlier writ petitions referred to above, namely, M/s. Manthan Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd. filed Misc. Case seeking for extension of time as the direction issued by this Court in the said writ petitions order to satisfy the Port Trust that it is capable to telecast all the channels as advertised in the notification, could not be complied with within the time fixed. The said Misc. Cases being Misc. Case No.9712 and 9713 of 2010 came up before this Court for consideration. The aforesaid Misc. Cases were strongly opposed by the petitioners counsel in the said writ petitions and this Court vide its order dated 21.7.2010 allowed the Misc. Cases accepting the prayer made therein. This Court has given some direction at paragraph-13 of the order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below: “We direct the opposite party-Port Trust that if the Misc. Petitioner has complied with the requirements, the same may be considered and necessary steps shall be taken to execute the contract in its favour without delay. This Court has given some direction at paragraph-13 of the order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below: “We direct the opposite party-Port Trust that if the Misc. Petitioner has complied with the requirements, the same may be considered and necessary steps shall be taken to execute the contract in its favour without delay. Any steps that would be taken by Port Trust pursuant to this order will be subject to the final order that will be passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in Petition No.180(C) of 2010 filed by the Misc. petitioner, M/s. Manthan Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd. before the said Tribunal.” 11.The order passed by this Court was not given effect to by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention that a complaint case being C.C. No.71 of 2009 has been filed by opposite party no.2 and the same is pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, Cuttack in which proceeding there was an interim order passed on 30.6.2009 against which a revision was filed by the Port Trust before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi being Revision Petition No.2557 of 2009. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide its order dated 11.8.2009 disposed of the revision petition allowing one week time to the petitioner herein to file written version and reply before the State Commission who will pre-pone the hearing of the case and fix a date in the week commencing 24.8.2009 for hearing the Misc. Application No.864 of 2009 on merits. The operation of the said interim order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is extended till then. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions could not be given effect to. It is further stated that the Commission has passed an order which is directly in conflict with the orders passed by this Court, which are referred to supra, one is the order passed on merits on the writ petitions and the other in not interfering with selecting M/s. Manthan Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd. as L-1 and direction was issued by this Court on 21.7.2010 in the Misc. petitions to the Port Trust for executing the contract in compliance with the direction contained at paragraph-14 referred to supra. petitions to the Port Trust for executing the contract in compliance with the direction contained at paragraph-14 referred to supra. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits that even though against the impugned order an appeal is provided under Section-19 of the Consumer Protection Act, having regard to the undisputed fact opposite party no.2 cannot be a complainant in terms of the definition under Section-2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, which provision states thus: (i)a consumer; or (ii)any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii)the Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint; (iv)one or more consumers where there are numerous consumers having the same interest. 12.It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the Trade Union, opposite party no.2 does not come within the purview of the definition of “consumer Association” registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and therefore the General Secretary had no right to file the complaint in his individual capacity as a consumer before the Commission as it does not come within the definition of clause-1 sub-clause (b) of Section-2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, it is urged that the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable before the Commission as it has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. Therefore, the said order is challenged before this Court as the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the opposite party no.2 and pass order and give direction to the petitioner as the same is in utter contravention of the directions issued in the orders passed in the writ petitions and Miscellaneous petitions referred to supra. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by filing writ petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the impugned order and quash the same. In support of this legal contentions, he has placed strong reliance upon paragraphs 41, 49 and 53 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 412 . The relevant portion of the same will be extracted at the reasoning portion of this judgment. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 412 . The relevant portion of the same will be extracted at the reasoning portion of this judgment. 13.He has also placed reliance upon the affidavit filed by the Deputy Manager, Management Services Paradip Port Trust before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The relevant portions of the affidavit are extracted below: “That out of 2600 number of consumers till date 1506 number of option forms have been received. Out of 9 numbers of registered unions, only 5 number of unions have submitted the option forms. That out of 5 number of unions who have expressed their option, all of them have submitted to discontinue the present Cable T.V. Operator i.e. M/s. ORTEL Communication Pvt. Ltd. That out of 1501 number of option forms, 5 number of employees have submitted to continue the present Cable T.V. Operator i.e. M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. and rest 1496 employees have opted for discontinuing the present Cable T.V. Operator and has opted for the L-I bidder i.e M/s. Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd.” 14.The affidavit of the Deputy Manager was filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 3.12.2009 much prior to the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions in respect of the matter of awarding contract for supply of Cable T.V. Service facilities by the eligible service providers to the subscribers who are living inside the campus of Paradip Port Trust. 15.The said averments are stated by way of an affidavit by the Deputy Manager, Management Services Paradip Port Trust before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a view to show that there is no merit in the grievances sought to be redressed by the General Secretary of the Trade Union, opposite party no.2 before the said Commission. 16.Learned Senior Counsel also further invited our attention to the order dated 26.2.2010 passed in the Writ Petition No.3018 of 2010 filed by the Port Trust questioning the correctness of the interim order passed in the complaint filed by M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: “....it is provided that the opposite party no.2 shall be paid according to the rates agreed upon between the Paradip Port Trust and opposite party no.2. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: “....it is provided that the opposite party no.2 shall be paid according to the rates agreed upon between the Paradip Port Trust and opposite party no.2. However, this will be subject to the orders passed in the W.P.(C) No.9134 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No.10386 of 2009 in which judgment is reserved” 17.Learned Senior Counsel further submits that this order was also not taken note of by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at the time of passing the impugned order. Therefore, he submits that the said order is without jurisdiction and the same is in blatant violation of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions by this Court. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order. 18.Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.2 sought to justify the filing of the complaint by the opposite party no.2 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission contending that the members of the Trade Union, are subscribers of Cable T.V. Channel which was provided earlier by the service provider, namely, M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that before issuing the tender call notice, the petitioner convened a meeting and vide its letter dated 5/6.3.2009 the Port Trust informed the General Secretary, Paradip Port Dock and Constructions Worker’s Union to send their views within one week from receipt of the letter. The General Secretary, Paradip Port Dock and Constructions Worker’s Union vide letter dated 10.6.2009 pointed out certain grievances in not including the channel list for the bidders, namely, Star Cricket, Star Sports, ESPN and Taranga (Oriya). Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the Paradip Port Trust to contend that the members of the Trade Union are not consumers in terms of the definition of Section-2(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, it cannot maintain the complaint for redressal of the grievances of its members before the Commission as the Port Trust is a service provider and it had the monopoly to provide the said facility to its members and it had written to Port Trust to award the contract in favour of the eligible Cable T.V. Service provider by providing the facility which they had earlier to the notification of tender call notice. Therefore, the General Secretary, Paradip Port Dock and Constructions Worker’s Union can be said that it is not an Association, as defined under Section-2(1)(b) of the Act to maintain its complaint before the Commission. Even the members of a Trade Union are all consumers and they will come within the definition of consumers under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that it should be treated as a consumer and the complaint filed by it before the Commission is maintainable in law. The said contention of opposite party no.2 is accepted by the Commission which has passed the order. Against the said order statutory right of appeal is provided to the petitioner herein. The same could have been availed by it by filing an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the present writ petition filed by the Port Trust under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in law and prayed for its dismissal. In support of the said contention he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 2608 more particularly upon paragraph-13 and 14 of the said decision, the relevant portions of which will be extracted in the reasoning portion of this judgment. 19.It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that for the reasons stated supra the opposite party no.2 has got substantial interest in the matter. Therefore, the grievance sought by opposite party no.2 to be redressed through the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is a matter which falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which involves both mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, appeal remedy would be the proper remedy for the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is required to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing an appeal. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 20.With reference to the above said rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration. (i)Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of Section-19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides statutory right of appeal to the petitioner ? Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 20.With reference to the above said rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration. (i)Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of Section-19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides statutory right of appeal to the petitioner ? (ii)Whether the Commission could have proceeded to hear the complaint despite this Court’s order passed on 12.5.2010 in the writ petitions filed by some of the tenderers and order dated 21.7.2010 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 9712 and 9713 of 2010 ? (iii)Whether the order passed by the State Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is legal and valid having regard to the nature of the reliefs sought for by the opposite party no.2 in the complaint ? (iv)Whether the impugned order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is beyond its jurisdiction and power ? (v)What order ? 21.The first point is required to be answered in favour of the Paradip Port Trust for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that Paradip Port area is a very sensitive area where the security of the country is involved and therefore it should be protected from the outsiders entering into the port area. Paradip Port Trust has undertaken the task of service facilitator to provide cable service to the residents of the Port area through cable service provider by inviting tenders with certain terms and conditions as it is an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This procedure has been followed by the Paradip Port Trust since last 10 years to award contract in favour of eligible Service Provided to provide T.V. Cable services to the residents of the area. That is why the contract was entered with the Service Provider by the petitioner for supply of Cable Channel Service to the residents of the area, who are subscribers of the said service. In fact the financial liability is at the rate of 60 : 40 upon the subscribers and the Port Trust respectively. The contract period of M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. came to an end in the year 2009. Therefore, the Paradip Port Trust issued tender call notice inviting bids from the eligible persons for supply of Cable T.V. channel to the residents of the Port area. The contract period of M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. came to an end in the year 2009. Therefore, the Paradip Port Trust issued tender call notice inviting bids from the eligible persons for supply of Cable T.V. channel to the residents of the Port area. The Technical and Financial Bids were the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the writ petitions referred to supra. An interim order was passed by this Court on 29.6.2009 in the said writ petitions inter alia directing that status quo as on that date regarding Cable T.V. Channel pursuant to Annexure-1 shall be maintained. The status quo order was in operation till 12.5.2010, the date on which order was passed on merits. The said writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions which has been extracted earlier. 22.As the conditions mentioned in the order was not complied with by M/s. Manthan Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd. within the stipulated period, it filed Misc. Case nos. 9712 and 9713 of 2010 in the disposed of writ petitions. Time was extended vide order dated 21.7.2010 passed in the aforesaid Misc. Cases. In the said order there was a specific direction to the Paradip Port trust to enter into contract. The said order of this Court has become final. Neither M/s. ORTEL Communication Pvt. Ltd. nor opposite party no.2 challenged the said order. It is the duty of the Paradip Port Trust to comply with the said order, otherwise they were to face Contempt of Court proceedings as the said order is binding upon it. The above said relevant undisputed facts are required to be borne in mind to examine the legal contentions urged in this case and also the prayers sought for by the opposite party no.2 before the State Commission by approaching belatedly after the tender process in connection with supply of Cable T.V. channel to the residents of the Port area, both Technical and Financial Bid was over and obtained the interim order from the State Commission. In justification of the same reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf opposite party no.2 upon Annexures-3 and 7 that there was deficiency in service in not including certain channels to be provided by the successful bidder in the tender notification. In justification of the same reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf opposite party no.2 upon Annexures-3 and 7 that there was deficiency in service in not including certain channels to be provided by the successful bidder in the tender notification. The reliefs sought for by the opposite party no.2 is in the nature of permanent injunction and declaratory relief which cannot be granted by the State Commission. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for adjudication of the rights of a consumer or consumer Association, wherever there is a deficiency of service to compensate the same by awarding damages in favour of an aggrieved party. That is not the prayer in the complaint of the opposite party no.2 The prayer of the opposite party no.2 is totally different and the same could not have been granted by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Hence, the complaint of the opposite party no.2 on this ground itself, apart from other reasons is required to be rejected. For the reasons stated supra, entertaining the complaint petition of the opposite party no.2 and passing the impugned order by the State Commission is totally without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner on the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society & Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 412 , wherein the power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been succinctly laid down by the apex Court after examining the rival legal contentions in the said case which are noted at paragraph-4 of the said judgment. The relevant portion of paragraph-4 is extracted below: “(1)(a) Parliament is not empowered to establish hierarchy of Courts like the District Fora, State Commission and the National Commission parallel to the hierarchy of Courts established under the Constitution, namely, District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court in the absence of a suitable amendment made in the Constitution of India in terms of Article 368 thereof. (b) Such hierarchy of consumer Courts established under the Act would result in conflict of decisions with the hierarchy of Courts established under the Constitution dealing with similar matters. (b) Such hierarchy of consumer Courts established under the Act would result in conflict of decisions with the hierarchy of Courts established under the Constitution dealing with similar matters. (2) Parliament having regard to the provisions of Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India could not enact the Act by establishing forums which are substitutes of the civil Courts including the High Court. (3) The provisions of the said Act strike at the independence of the judiciary. (4) As the Act does not contain any provision to transfer a case from one consumer Court to another and furthermore, the forum and the Commissions having no power to pass interim orders, the functioning thereof is unworkable. (5) Parliament can only establish Courts which may deal with special subjects specified therefore but not a Court which will run parallel to civil Courts.” 23.In the aforesaid case reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 . It is also worthwhile to refer to what the Apex Court held in the said judgment. The relevant paragraphs of the Judgment are extracted hereunder. “49. The question as regards the applicability or otherwise of Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution in the matter of constitution of such Tribunals came up for consideration before this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. This Court therein clearly held that the constitutional provisions vest Parliament and the State Legislatures, as the case may be, with powers to divest the traditional Courts of a considerable portion of their judicial work. It was observed that the Parliament and the State Legislatures possess legislative competence to effect changes in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court apart from the authorization that flows from Articles 323-A and 323-B in terms of Entries 77, 78, 79 and 95 of List II and Entry 46 of List III so far as the State Legislatures are concerned. It was further held that power of judicial review being the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be taken away. 53. It was further held that power of judicial review being the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be taken away. 53. The provisions relating to power to approach appellate Court by a party aggrieved by a decision of the forums/State Commissions as also the power of the High Court and this Court under Articles-226/227 of the Constitution of India and Article 32 of this Court apart from Section 23 of the Act provide for adequate safeguards. Furthermore, primarily the jurisdiction of the forums/Commissions is to grant damages. In the event, a complainant feels that he will have a better and effective remedy in a Civil Court as he may have to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file a suit in an appropriate civil Court or may take recourse to some other remedies as provided for in other statutes.” 24.In the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & ors., referred to supra, the apex Court at paragraphs-91,92 and 93 has succinctly laid down the law in answer to point no.1. The aforesaid paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “91....It appears that no follow up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improve matters considerably. Having regard to both the afore-stated contentions, we hold that all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution, will be subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls. 92. We may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above mentioned observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 93. ...The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. 93. ...The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional setup, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the concerned High Court may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Court. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal.” 25.In view of the law declared by the Apex Court after considering the rival contentions as has been raised in the instant case, in the cases referred to supra, reliance has been placed by Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.2 upon a decision of the Supreme Curt in the case of Om Prakash Saini Vs. DCM Ltd. & Ors, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2608 to substantiate the contention that the complaint filed by opposite party no 2. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.2 upon a decision of the Supreme Curt in the case of Om Prakash Saini Vs. DCM Ltd. & Ors, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2608 to substantiate the contention that the complaint filed by opposite party no 2. is maintainable and the Commission has got jurisdiction which is wholly untenable in law and cannot be accepted by us for the reason that the reliefs sought for by the opposite party no.2 are not available and the relief if any for the opposite party no.2 is only to claim damages under the provisions of the Act, that is not sought for by it before the State Commission. The reliefs of declaratory and permanent injunction as prayed for in the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 could have been made before the Civil Court in a properly framed original suit. The same has also not been done. Therefore, the complaint entertained by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is without jurisdiction and hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner invoking its constitutional and statutory rights as it is an authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the impugned order is maintainable before this Court. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court referred to supra by Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is not applicable to the fact situation of the case. Hence, the same cannot be applied to the fact situation in view of the submissions made by Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly the first point is answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner. 26.The other points framed above are inter-related and therefore, they are answered together by assigning the following reasons in favour of the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact that bids were invited by issuing Tender Call Notice. That was not challenged by any one of the members of the Trade Union of opposite party no.2 including the General Secretary of the Trade Union. The writ petition filed by the ineligible bidder and the competitor who is presently providing cable service to the residents of the area namely, M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. urging various legal contentions was examined by this Court and this Court vide order dated 12.5.2010 dismissed the writ petition by recording reasons. The writ petition filed by the ineligible bidder and the competitor who is presently providing cable service to the residents of the area namely, M/s. Ortel Communication Pvt. Ltd. urging various legal contentions was examined by this Court and this Court vide order dated 12.5.2010 dismissed the writ petition by recording reasons. In the said order there is a specific direction to the Port Trust that M/s. Manthan Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. must comply the condition by providing 60 channels and 40 pay channels by executing the agreement within ten days from the date of the order. No doubt within the time stipulated therein the direction was not complied with by it for which it filed Misc. Case Nos. 9712 and 9713 of 2010 in the said disposed of writ petitions and this Court vide order dated 21.7.2010 allowed the Misc. Cases within certain direction to the petitioner. The relevant portion of which has been extracted supra. This order was brought to the notice of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said Commission is subject to jurisdiction of this court and should have carefully examined the orders and directions issued in the writ petition in relation to the very same subject matter which is being litigated by opposite party no.2 before it. It is very strange for the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to make an observation on the basis of the submission made on behalf of opposite party no.2 and recording a finding in the operative portion of the impugned order, which reads thus:- “Since there is nothing before us to show that the viewers of the existing Cable T.V. Network service provided by the present service provider are not satisfied with it, we find no reason to allow any disruption in the arrangement which is continuing for the last more than a decade, especially when it has agreed to provide such service at the L-I rate.” 27.The aforesaid finding recorded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at the operative portion of the order is in blatant violation of the directions of this court referred to supra and the said finding is contrary to the factual aspects sworn to by the Deputy Manager in the said proceedings, the relevant portion of which has already been extracted above. Therefore, we may have to make an observation that the State Commission being the special forum under the statute whose orders can be reviewed by this Court in exercise of its Judicial Review Power as held by the Constitution bench decisions in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. referred to supra. 28.It is not expected from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to violate the orders passed by this court in exercise of its Constitutional Power and pass different order in respect of the very same subject matter. The President and Members of the State Commission are expected to function within the parameters of law. It is very painful for us to make this observation as the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which comprises of a retired High Court Judge as its President and other members should function very cautiously, diligently knowing their jurisdiction and powers. In our considered view, the learned President and the Members of the State Commission have exceeded their jurisdiction and power despite the fact that it was brought to their notice that substantial portion of the subscribers are satisfied with awarding the contract in favour of the other persons and the lis is decided by this Court by answering the legal questions raised in the writ petitions and the orders of this Court have become final. Without considering the above relevant important facts which are referred to in the orders of this Court, accepting the case of the opposite party no.2 shows that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in utter disregard of the orders of this Court has passed the impugned order which is in conflict with the orders of this Court. The same is not expected from it in exercise of its statutory power. We have made the above observation for the future guidance of the State Commission so as to function in the manner as provided in the Statute and in accordance with law. 29.For the reasons stated supra, we hold that the complaint of opposite party no.2 is not maintainable before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and it has exceeded in its jurisdiction and power in passing the impugned order which is not a speaking one. The findings and reasons recorded by the State Commission are not only erroneous but also error in law. The findings and reasons recorded by the State Commission are not only erroneous but also error in law. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. Since we have quashed the order, we direct the Port Trust to give effect to our orders forthwith. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.I agree. Order accordingly.