Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) In spite of an alternative remedy shown in the Statute Book, i.e. in the Consumers Protection Act by way of an appeal against the impugned order even then in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the order passed by the State Commission, West Bengal, I am of the view that the impugned order must be set aside on the ground that it was passed without Jurisdiction. The admitted facts are stated below:- A complaint was made by the petitioner for water connection in the premises in question in the Office of the District Consumers Forum at Howrah. The matter was fixed for ex parte hearing on 21st January, 1993. By order No. 6 dated 21st January, 1993, the District Consumer's Forum directed water connection to the petitioner at his residence at 28/1(b). Chandra Kumar Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah subject to deposit of inclidental charges and compliance of requisite formalities by the petitioners. The aforesaid order was passed by the District Consumer's Forum at Howrah by making the following observation:- "Heard the learned Lawyer of the both sides. Before entering into deep of the merit of this case learned Lawyer for the opposite party fairly conceded that if the complainant bear with all requirements and incidental charges for his water connection the opposite party then would be able to give water connection provisionally to the complainant at his residence at 28/1(b), Chandra Kumar Banerjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. Learned Lawyer for the complainant in his usual fairness agreed such proposal. Hence we do not find any justification to deal such about the merit of this case."
(2.) From the above quotation of the aforesaid order it is, therefore, clearly evident that a consent order was passed by the District Consumer's Forum at Howrah. However, subsequently an application for modification and/or recall of the aforesaid order was filed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as H.M.C. The said application was, however, by a reasoned order on 3rd May, 1994 rejected by the District Consumer,s Forum, Howrah. As noted hereinearlier, this order was passed on 3rd May, 1994. Against this order, a writ petition was moved by the H.M.C. and another. By an order dated 24th August, 1994, Samaresh Banerjea, J disposed of the writ application by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority along with the prayer for condonation of delay after explaining the reasons for which the appeal could not be filed. There is no dispute now that an appeal was filed thereafter, before the State Commission, West Bengal, with an application for condonation of delay. On 27th September, 1994, the State Commission, West Bengal by an order of The aforesaid date passed the following order:- "Appeal is admitted. Issue show cause notice upon the respondent. Stay operation of the impugned order dated 3.5.94 passed in C. D. F., Howrah, order No. 9 and all further proceedings. N/d. is fixed on 22.11.94 for appearance, service return and hearing. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the appellant in course of the day."
(3.) Against the aforesaid order of the State Commission of West Bengal this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been movedly the complainant/petitioner.;