Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) Upon hearing Mr Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioners and Mr Mukherjee being assisted by Ms. Mukherjee representing the opposite parties, the matter is taken up for disposal on merits.
(2.) It appears that the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against Order No.5 dated March 18, 2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in Miscellaneous Applications No.MA 41 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.CC/106/2015; MA 42 of 2016 arising out of CC 107 of 2015, MA 43 of 2016 in CC 108 of 2015, MA 44 of 2016 in CC 109 of 2015 and MA 45 of 2016 in CC 110 of 2015 by which the miscellaneous applications were dismissed upon hearing both parties.
(3.) Accordingly, when the present nature of case is to be decided within the special statute like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and when there is a special provision enshrined under section 21(b) of the Act vesting jurisdiction to the National Commission to pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute pending before or has been decided by any State Commission, then there is no scope on the part of this court to interfere with the order impugned under Article 227. Apart from the law itself, this view also has been formulated on and again by the apex court and this court, say for example, Civil Appeal No.2123 of 2012 (Phalguni Das v. Tapas Dutta) decided on February 15, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court; CO No.2363 of 2016 (Biplab Majumder v. Arindam Mondal & Ors.) decided on March 23, 2017 passed by this court; CO No.745 of 2014 (Nurul Huda Layek v. Tapan Kumar Sen & Anr) decided on March 21, 2017 passed by this court; and also the case of Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd. & Ors., 2010 AIR(SC) 2608 (paras.12 and 13).;