The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for a complete machinery to challenge the orders of the District Forum through appeals to the State Commission and further appeals to the National Commission, and therefore, the High Court should not entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless there are special circumstances justifying such intervention.

( 1 ) THIS hearing arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order dated 12th March, 1993 passed in SC Case No. 59/a/93 in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal affirming an order dated 23rd December, 1992 and setting aside an order dated 4th February, 1993 passed by the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in CDF Case No. 1507/92.

( 2 ) THE appeal arose out of an order dated 4. 2. 93 for reopening a disposed of case being C. D. F. Case No. 1507/92 on the application of the petitioner herein, Biswanath Pathak who was O. P. No. 3 in the C. D. F. case stated above. The main contention of the petitioner herein (Biswanath) is that the order dated 23. 12. 92 disposing of the C. D. F. case was passed without notice to him. On the said application filed by the petitioner herein, Biswanath, the Calcutta District Forum passed the order dated 1. 2. 93 directing to serve notice upon the respondent No. I herein, Shymal Kumar Pathak for hearing why the ex-parte order dated 23. 12. 93 would not be set aside. Immediately, thereafter, the respondent No. 1 herein, Shymal Pathak field the appeal being SC Case No. 59/a/93. The learned State Commission has been pleased to hold that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to reopen a disposed of case and hence the order dated 4. 2. 93 passed by the State Forum was beyond its jurisdiction. The Learned State Commission has further found on a perusal of the record of C. D. F. Case No. 1507/92 that no order dated 4. 2. 93 nor any application dated 4. 2. 93 filed by the respondent No. 1 was there in the record. The learned Commission came to the finding that the order dated 4. 2. 93 was procured by the petitioner herein, Biswanath Pathak by corrupt practice.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 12th March, 1993 the petitioner herein, Biswanath Pathak has come before this court alleging, inter alia, that the order passed by the learned State Commission is biased and without jurisdiction and that the learned Commission failed to take note of the legal ramification of the order passed by the District Forum which was sought to be reopened by Biswanath Pathak. The revisional application is hotly contested by the respondent No. 1, Shymal Kumar Pathak. He has filed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the material allegations made in the revisional application. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of the CESG, respondent No. 3.

( 4 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) AT the outset the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1, Shymal Pathak has submitted that the revisional application is not maintainable and in support of his contention he has referred to the principles laid down in Maneck Custodiji v. Sarafazali (AIR 1976 SC 2446), K. K. Srivastav v. B. K. Jain (AIR 1977 SC 1703), Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1983 SC 603) and the unreported decision of this High Court in C. O. No. 2015/92. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has further argued that the petitioner herein could have gone on appeal against the order of the learned State Commission before the National Commission and hence the application under Article 227 of our Constitution does not lie. The learned Advocate for the petitioner herein has submitted that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by any statute and the rule that where there are alternative remedies, the High Court should not entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution is not a rule of exclusion but a rule of discretion. Therefore, the High Court cannot be said to be deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a matter under Article 227 of the Constitution when the case can otherwise come within the ambit of the said Article.