ast 1 wp3435.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3435 OF 2010 Dr.Mrs.Anjali Nitin Dange. ....Petitioner Vs. The State Dispute Reddressal Commission State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. ....Respondents Mr.S.G.Talekar for petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.M.Saraogi, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- APRIL 30, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated 26th March, 2010 in Appeal No.A-324/2010. By the said order, the Commission has directed the Petitioner to deposit remaining decreetal amount within stipulated time, as condition for grant of ad-interim relief. The grievance of the Petitioner is that such condition, which does not have the backing of law is founded on the second proviso to section 15 of the Act, 1986. The same reads thus: ast 2 wp3435.10.sxw “15. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period: [Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty percent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.]” The interpretation put forth by the Petitioner in our opinion, will be pedantic approach. In our opinion, the provision prescribes precondition of deposit of 50% of that amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less for entertaining the appeal. That however, cannot be the basis to contend that the Commission has no discretion to impose condition on the appellant for grant of interim relief during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. The order in question falls within the later category. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the approach of the Commission, particularly in the fact situation of the present case, where the direction issued by the Forum is to refund the amount collected by the Petitioner by way of professional fees only. Hence this petition is dismissed. ast 3 wp3435.10.sxw 3. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner be given opportunity to move the Commission for appropriate direction, as may be permissible in law and till such time, the Respondents should not take any precipitative action. This request being reasonable one is acceded to on condition that the Petitioner will have to move the Commission within one week from today. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)