JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

The writ petitions and the civil revisional applications under consideration (hereafter the 'said matters', wherever referred to jointly) were assigned to the Division Bench presided over by one of us (Dipankar Datta, J.) by an order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated August 23, 2018. Subsequently, a writ appeal [FMA 1475 of 2018] arising out of W.P. 1248 (W) of 2017 upon being listed before a Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it was submitted on behalf of the appearing parties that W.P. 1248 (W) of 2017 itself had been assigned to a Division Bench. Hearing such submission, an order dated November 19, 2018 was passed directing such appeal to be placed before the presiding judge of this Bench resulting in listing thereof together with the said matters.

2. Assignment of the said matters by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ensued because of an order dated March 7, 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in C.O. 2440 of 2011 (Kamala Properties Limited v. Miss Suchismita Roy & ors.). Noticing the divergence of opinion expressed by several single Judges, two on one side holding that the remedy made available by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter the CP Act) to a purchaser having a grievance against a promoter is excluded in view of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 (hereafter the Building Act), and one on the other holding to the contrary, His Lordship referred the said revisional application to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for decision by a larger bench.

3. Upon the said matters being posted for hearing, it appeared to us that no question of law had been formulated for our answer. However, from an order dated September 21, 2016 passed by a coordinate bench, to which the said matters had been assigned previously, it appeared that Their Lordships had expressed as follows:

"In all these petitions, the main question involved is as to whether the for a constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have jurisdiction over disputes between promoters/developers and purchasers of residential buildings or flats, having regard to the provisions of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act".

4. The parties not having disputed that this was the precise question requiring an answer to dispose of the reference, we called upon them to address us.

5. Despite the reference arising in connection with the said matters, we have been addressed on behalf of the promoters only in W.P. 23027 (W) of 2017 and W.P. 1248(W) of 2017 by Mr. U.C. Jha and Mr. Arijit Bardhan, learned advocates, respectively.

6. Mr. Jha and Mr. Bardhan have endeavoured to impress upon us that either of the three for a constituted under the CP Act for receiving a complaint regarding deficiency of service would be a 'civil court' within the meaning of section 12A of the Building Act and hence the provisions of the CP Act, providing for a remedy, stand excluded qua its operation to a purchaser-promoter dispute.

7. Citing the decision in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India reported in, (1994) 6 SCC 731, Mr. Jha initiated his address by seeking to enlighten us on what a 'Court' means. It has been held therein that a 'Court' is an agency created by the sovereign for the purpose of administering justice and is a place where justice is judicially administered. It is a tribunal presided over by one or more Judges on whom are conferred judicial powers for administering justice in accordance with law. When a Judge takes his seat in Court, the Court is said to assemble for administering justice. Although the words 'Court' and 'Judge' are frequently used interchangeably because a Judge is an essential constituent of a Court, that is not to say that when a Judge demits office the Court ceases to exist.

8. Mr. Jha further argued, relying on Fair Air Enginee