- (1.) HEARD learned Coun sel for the petitioner.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the appeal filed against the impugned order dated 28-4-1997 is pending before the State Forum. This peti tion has been filed challenging the order dated 12-8-1997 by which the District Con sumer Forum has directed the petitioner to restore the telephone connection at the transferred place within two weeks. In our opinion, the petitioner may approach the appellate authority against this order also. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the appellate authority, namely the State Forum has no authority to grant an interim order. Reliance has been placed on the case of Morgan Stanefy Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, JT 1994 (3) SC 654. However, in our opinion, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case because in that case the Supreme Court held that the District Consumer Forum could not pass an interim order, whereas we are concerned with the State Forum. Learned Counsel has submitted that shifting of telephone from one place to another was not the subject matter of complaint for the District Con sumer Forum and by the order dated 28-4-1997 no such relief was granted. Under Sec tion 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, the State Consumer Forum while exercising ap pellate powers can pass interim orders for preventing injustice. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in LT. O. v. Md. Kunhi AIR 1969 SC 430, the power to pass interim orders is inherent in the appellate power. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .;