SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) At the beginning of the hearing learned Advocate Mr. Prabitra Charan Bhattacharjee, appearing for the opposite parties, raised a preliminary objection that in view of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution usurping the jurisdiction of the National Commission.
(2.) In this context, it is necessary to take into consideration of the provisions of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is quoted below : - "Section 21... Sub -Section (b) gives power and jurisdiction to the National Commission to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission, if it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The Commission may also scrutinize if the State Commission has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction." Article 227 of the Constitution of India is also quoted below : - "Article 227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court - [(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.] (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may - a) call for returns from such courts; b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."
(3.) The Provisions in Section 21 - ".. The Commission may also scrutinize if the State Commission has failed to exercise a jurisdiction..." does not, in any way, curtail the power under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution. On a close scrutiny it further appears, and can be interpreted that even a decision passed by the National Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is also amenable to the superintending power of a High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the same. If that be so, why a party, in a given case, according to his convenience, cannot obtain relief under Article 227 of the Constitution, against an order of the State Commission. On further scrutiny of the provisions, as aforesaid, it appears that if for an aggrieved party two options for revisions are provided for by law, one under ordinary Statute and the other under the Constitution itself, it is the choice of the party suffering prejudice by the order aggrieved by. To strike down usurpation of office is the function and duty of High Courts in exercise of their constitutional powers under Article 226 and Article 227. Article 227 is not merely procedural but confers substantive right on litigant to move High Court against the decisions or orders of Tribunals. ;