JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, declining the application viz., I.A.No.1321/2017 in Appeal No.618/2010, holding that petitioner is not entitled to get refund of the amount deposited as a condition precedent to maintain the appeal before the Consumer Commission, which is the appellate forum. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is the petitioner in I.A.No.1321/2017 in Appeal No.618/2010 on the files of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, and respondents 2 to 4 are petitioners and 2nd respondent in O.P.No.848/2003 on the files of the District Consumer Forum, Thrissur. It was against the order passed by the forum, the above specified appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The District Forum directed the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the writ petition viz., K.M. Nazeer to return Rs.1,00,000/- to respondents 1 and 3 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization, with cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent was dismissed by the Commission in the appeal specified above. Even though a revision petition was preferred before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the findings rendered were upheld. However, the amount was modified to Rs.70,000/-instead of Rs.1,00,000/-along with interest awarded by the State Commission. 3. After the order of the National Commission, the subject matter was settled by and between the parties. Under such circumstances, as per Ext.P1 order, the settlement was recorded and the execution proceedings are closed. It was further observed in the said order that the petitioner herein is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited before the Consumer Redressal Commission amounting to Rs.25,000/-. It was thereafter, petitioner has submitted application before the Commission for release of the amount deposited by the petitioner before the Commission as a condition precedent for maintaining the appeal. It was further observed in the said order that the petitioner herein is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited before the Consumer Redressal Commission amounting to Rs.25,000/-. It was thereafter, petitioner has submitted application before the Commission for release of the amount deposited by the petitioner before the Commission as a condition precedent for maintaining the appeal. However, as per Ext.P3 order, the Commission has dismissed the application stating that Rule 29 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2005, postulates that the amount deposited to entertain the appeal shall be released to the decree holder on such conditions and on execution of proper bond, subject to the satisfaction of the State Commission, but, no right is conferred on an opposite party, particularly a judgment debtor, who suffered an adverse order for refund of the amount deposited, unless his challenge is accepted and appeal is allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. Even though notice is served on respondents 2 and 3, there is no appearance. 5. The discussion of facts made above would make it clear that, it was on account of the settlement entered into by and between the parties that an application was moved before the Commission to release the amount of Rs.25,000/-deposited by the petitioner. However, the Commission dismissed the same, stating that petitioner is not entitled to claim for such amount and the amount can only be released to the decree holder in accordance with Rule 29 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2005, which read thus: “29. Remittance of deposit amount.--The deposit amount prescribed in this rule as a condition precedent to institute an appeal shall be paid to the State Commission by way of demand draft of banker's cheque of any Nationalised Bank drawn in favour of the Registrar and Secretary of the State Commission, payable at Thiruvananthapuram and the Registrar and Secretary shall, in turn, deposit the amount in a Nationalised Bank in the deposit account of the Commission to be opened. Provided that in justified cases, the amount so deposited shall be released to the decree holder on such conditions and on execution of a proper bond, subject to the satisfaction of the State Commission”. 6. Provided that in justified cases, the amount so deposited shall be released to the decree holder on such conditions and on execution of a proper bond, subject to the satisfaction of the State Commission”. 6. In my considered view, the said stand adopted by the Commission cannot be sustained under law. First of all, it is an amount deposited by the petitioner as a condition precedent for maintaining the appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is true, as per the provisions, the amount could be released to the decree holder by the Commission on such conditions and on execution of a proper bond subject to the satisfaction of the Commission, but I am of the view, the proviso to Rule 29 only deals with an intervening circumstances during the pendency of the appeal. The discretion provided under the proviso is only with respect to the release of the amount to the decree holder during the pendency of the appeal and that discretion available to the Commission cannot be extended for release of the money to the decree-holder after the disposal of the appeal. Which thus also means, if the amount is sought to be released by the decree-holder after the dismissal of the appeal, the Commission shall release the amount and no discretion can be exercised as per the proviso. However, the circumstances herein are different, since the subject matter is settled by and between the parties, and it was provided in the agreement that petitioner is at liberty to seek release of the money from the Commission. Moreover, there is no provision either under the Consumer Protection Act or the Rules to detain such amounts by the Commission without being paid either to the decree holder or the judgment debtor, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, like the one on hand and the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules shall be read down to mean so. 7. In that view of the matter, and assimilating the legal and factual circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the order passed by the Commission is without jurisdiction and against the provisions of law, liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In that view of the matter, and assimilating the legal and factual circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the order passed by the Commission is without jurisdiction and against the provisions of law, liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the Commission to release the amount to the petitioner at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.