R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioners/appellants arises out of order dated 2nd August, 2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in F.A. No. 352 of 2013, by which the State Commission dismissed the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 -Parganas in C.C. Case No. 289 of 2010.
(2.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on this day is kept with the record. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners challenged the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 -Parganas by filing civil revision before this Court being C.O. No. 3714 of 2014. The said civil revision was disposed of on 15th January, 2013 by giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer appeal against the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, the petitioners preferred the appeal being F.A. No. 352 of 2013 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal along with an application for condonation of delay for 75 days in preferring the said appeal. However, the State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay after hearing of both parties on the ground that there is no merit in the application filed by the petitioners/appellants and that no specific cause is made out for the inordinate delay in preferring the said appeal. The said order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is under challenge before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relying on unreported decision of this Court passed by learned Single Judge on 21st March, 2013 in C.O. No. 2758 of 2012, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to bring the Tribunal within the precincts of law. Learned counsel further submits that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioners had chosen the wrong forum for preferring revision before this Court without preferring appeal against the order of the District Forum and thereby inordinate delay took place for preferring the appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State Commission has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it by law and as such, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even when the petitioners did not prefer revision before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the State Commission.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has relied on the decision in the case of "The Manager, Burdwan Co -operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited V. Anath Bandhu Dhara" reported in : 2009(2) CLJ (Cal) 685 in order to put forward the argument that this Court will not exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for granting relief to the petitioner who has remedy by preferring revision against the order of the State Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.;