The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and should only intervene in cases of clear jurisdictional errors.

1. Heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner; against whom a proceeding under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") had been initiated by the present respondent, has filed this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order dated 26-10-2009 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "State Commission") in Appeal No. FA 17/2009 preferred by the present respondent challenging the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, "District Forum") in case No. CC 33/2007. By the said order dated 26-10-2009, the appeal preferred by the present respondent has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the learned District Forum in the aforesaid proceeding. The learned State Commission has granted the relief claimed by the present respondent by holding that the respondent is a consumer within the meaning of S.2(1)(d) of the said Act.

3. According to the petitioner, it is evident from the materials made available before the learned District Forum that the respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of S.2(1)(d) of the said Act as the goods were carried for commercial purpose and as such the District Forum as well as the State Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent, which was in fact dismissed by the District Forum by holding that the present respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of S.2(1)(d) of the said Act. The learned Sr. Counsel submits that even though there is a provision for appeal under S.19 of the Act to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "National Commission") against the decision of the State Commission, since the order of the State Commission is illegal being without jurisdiction the respondent being not a 'consumer' within the meaning of S.2(1)(d) of the said Act, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Sr. Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Hooghly Co - operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Nemai Chandra Ghosh reported in AIR 2007 Calcutta 230.

4. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, had contended that the scope of interference, with the order passed by the State Commission, by this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, which jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, whether the respondent is a consumer is a matter of fact, which requires examination of the materials made available before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission and the finding relating to the consumer as recorded by the learned State Commission can, therefore, only be agitated in an appeal to be preferred before the National Commission under S.19 of the said Act, which question cannot be gone into by the writ Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, as this Court is not to re - appreciate the evidences on record, in exercise of the said jurisdiction.

5. The scope of interference with an order passed by the subordinate Court or the Tribunal in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Such jurisdiction is purely supervisory over the records and proceedings of the subordinate Court or