1 wp-4523-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4523 OF 2010 Tejpal Bandulal Shah & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Amit B. Borkar, for the petitioners. Mr.Samir Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr.Prashant S. Bharake, for respondent No.5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 29th October, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Borkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolhapur, the petitioners have filed Appeal No.1061 of 2009 before the State Commissioner and on 17th December, 2009 Miscellaneous Application No.1327 of 2009 filed for stay to the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum was heard by the State Commission, 2 wp-4523-10 interim relief with conditions attached was granted while issuing notice. The said order reads as under:- “Heard. Issue notice before admission to respondent returnable on 16.1.2010 on stay application. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is allowed subject to payment of total amount of award passed by District Forum, Kolhapur along with interest, mental agony and cost within period of four weeks. The stay will be operative on deposit. Matter stand over to 16.1.2010.” The above order has been questioned in this petition and that is the only challenge which survives as prayers (a) and (b) have been deleted with the leave of the Court on 3rd September, 2010. 2. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the remedy of appeal, against the order passed by the District Forum, and the appeal lies before the State Commission. However, as per the second proviso added therein by the amendment of 2002 no appeal of 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 petitioner has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less. Thus the 3 wp-4523-10 deposit as prescribed under the Act is fifty per cent of the claim/compensation amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less. However, by the impugned order the State Commission has directed the petitioners to deposit the entire amount along with interest and costs, etc. Mr. Borkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has virtually taken away the statutory right of appeal available to the petitioners under Section 15 of the Act as the petitioners have not deposited the entire amount and consequently the order of interim relief has not taken effect. He also submitted that the State Commission may not hear his appeal unless the entire amount is deposited. 3. If the petitioners comply with the conditions set out in the second proviso below Section 15 of the Act, their appeal as well as the application for interim relief is required to be heard by the State Forum and, therefore, Mr. Borkar submitted that the petitioners will comply with the said requirement within a fixed period and on that condition the appeal as well the application for stay must be heard by the State Commission and decide the same as per law. We do not find any reason to take exception to these submissions. 4. Hence we direct that if the petitioners deposit in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of the amount under recovery or compensation, under the impugned order 4 wp-4523-10 passed by the District Forum or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less, within a period of four weeks from today, we direct that the Miscellaneous Application No.1327 of 2009 be heard and decided on its own merits. The interim order granted by this Court on 14th June, 2010 shall continue to operate for a further period of four weeks. The petition stands disposed accordingly. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)