The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for instruments to be duly stamped and registered for admissibility in evidence, as emphasized by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has challenged the appellate order dated July 19, 2017 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with which the order dated November 27, 2013 passed the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has merged. This petition is at the instance of the promoter and was decided at the initial stage by the District Forum on contest against it though ex parte against the original land-owners.

2. The petition for judicial review of the said order which has been passed by the statutory tribunal has been urged to be maintainable, by the Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. U. C. Jha, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He says so on the basis of a judgment reported in Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society and Another--v--Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others reported in 2008 (4) CHN 420 and for the proposition that both petitions under Article 226 and 227 are available against such orders passed by tribunals having judicial trappings are maintainable. He also relies upon the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam--v--Chhabi Nath, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 to the extent it alters and overrules paragraph 25 of the judgment in Surya Dev Rai--v--Ram Chander Rai and Others reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 to show to the extent that it has been held that only an application under Article 227 is maintainable against an order passed by a Civil court. Lastly, he relies upon paragraph 63 of the judgment in the case of Universal Consortium of Engineers (P) Ltd. and Others--v--State of West Bengal and Others reported in (2019) 1 CAL LT 580 (HC) answering the reference being W.P. No. 23027 (W) of 2017 along with F.M.A. No. 1475 of 2018 decided on February 18, 2019. Paragraph 63 of the said judgment is set out herein below for appreciation of the point that the fora created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not Courts far less than Civil Court and, therefore, a petition under Article 226 is available for judicial review of the orders passed by such Commission and Forum under the said Act of 1986:

"In view of our discussion as above as well as the authorities that we have noted, the conclusion is inescapable that the consumer fora created by the CP Act are not 'courts', far less 'civil courts', and its jurisdiction to receive a complaint from a home buyer against a promoter is not barred in view of the provisions of section 12A of the Building Act."

3. I have heard Mr. Pal for the respondent no.4 and though he has tried to submit that this is a case where judicial review has been sought of an order which would have the effect of prejudicing a party which is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. I am satisfied that the petition is maintainable and that question raised by Mr. Pal is not germane to oust a judicial review of an order passed by a statutory tribunal particularly when the extraordinary and writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for judicial review of the order of a statutory tribunal. Such tribunals, in many cases, it is trite, decide the questions raised not merely or even at all by "State" actors, but essentially private parties. If in such cases, if merely because the party which will be affected is a "non-State" actor, jurisdiction is declined, I will be carving out an exception to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not warranted by its language.

4. Without going through the facts in tedious detail, but only those necessary for the present purpose, let us look at the facts on record essential to decide this petition. The respondent no. 4 had approached the District Forum on the allegation that it had made payment of substantial sums in terms of agreement for sale made on April 23, 2003 including rupees eight lacs fifty thousand between September 6, 2001 and March 28, 2003 and though this was disputed,