1. The Court: This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dated 30.6.92. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that since the appeal lies against such an order under s. 17 of the Consumers' Protection Act, the High Court may not interfere 'in this writ petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that power conferred by s. 19 are wider and that whatever grievances have been raised in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would be taken care of by s. 19 of the said Act. Therefore, this court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1977 SC 1703 (K. K. Srivastava & Anr. vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain), (2) AIR 1976 SC 2276 (Miss Maneck Custodji Surjarji vs. Sarrafazali Nawabali Mirza) and (3) AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore and Ors. vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi and Anr). In the last decision the Supreme Court held that of alternative remedy is a suitable