Judgment 1. The Court: This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal dated 30.6.92. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that since the appeal lies against such an order under s. 17 of the Consumers' Protection Act, the High Court may not interfere 'in this writ petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that power conferred by s. 19 are wider and that whatever grievances have been raised in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would be taken care of by s. 19 of the said Act. Therefore, this court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1977 SC 1703 (K. K. Srivastava & Anr. vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain), (2) AIR 1976 SC 2276 (Miss Maneck Custodji Surjarji vs. Sarrafazali Nawabali Mirza) and (3) AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore and Ors. vs. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi and Anr). In the last decision the Supreme Court held that of alternative remedy is a suitable solution available on the terms of the Statute itself the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition may not be appropriate and proper. Consumer Protection Act is a self-contained code making appropriate provisions for rectification or correction of the grievances which could have been raised in this writ petition before the trial forum or the appellate forum. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the present case when we examined the various points raised, we find that there is no such mistake of the nature which attracts Article 227 of the Constitution making it a case fit for our interference. The petitioner should go to the National Commission and raise all these questions of law and facts which have been raised here. Since the period of limitation for preferring the appeal to the National Commission of 30 days has expired, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties prayed for extension of that period till 31.8.94. The petitioner should go to the National Commission and raise all these questions of law and facts which have been raised here. Since the period of limitation for preferring the appeal to the National Commission of 30 days has expired, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties prayed for extension of that period till 31.8.94. If the appeal is filed within that period, the National Commission would consider the request for condonation of the delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act read with s. 14 of the said Act. In the result, this Revisional Application stands dismissed. Prayer for stay is considered and rejected. Let xerox copy of this hand written order be given to the learned Advocates for both parties on usual undertaking. Revisional application dismissed.