JUDGMENT D. P . Sarkar, (II) J. This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 8.6.1993 passed by the State Commission in case no. 909 of 1992 arising out of an agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Opposite party for construction and handing over of housing flat to the opposite party by the petitioner against consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the first instance. It is an admitted case that the opposite party handed over Rs. 10,000/- to the present petitioner out of the total consideration amount. But there was no progress in the construction of the flat and the opposite party being frustrated approached the petitioner and there was amicably novation of the contract by which the petitioner agreed to handover a completed two-room/smaller dimension flat on the second floor to the opposite party in consideration of Rs. 80,000/-, and also agreed to refund Rs. 30,000/-, the balance amount. According to such terms, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner paid Rs. 4,000/- as interest to the opposite party and also issued, three cheques, two for Rs. 10,000/- each and the last one was for Rs. 5,000/-. But all the three cheques, unfortunately, bounced and naturally when the specific date for delivery of the flat i.e. March 1991 was over and the flat was not handed over to the opposite party by the petitioner, the opposite party approached the State Commission and the State Commission after hearing both the parties and considering the documents and other evidence was pleased to direct the present petitioner to hand over possession of a flat on the second floor of the building complete in all respects as per agreement and to refund of sum of Rs. 30,000/ - to the present opposite party. The Commission awarded interest at the rate of 18% for the total amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- on and from April 1991 until delivery of the flat, and thirdly the Commission directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony etc. On being aggrieved by such order the present application under Art. 227 has been filed by the present petitioner firstly challenging the jurisdiction of this State Commission to entertain a dispute of such nature and also on the ,ground challenging the merit of the order as mentioned above. 2. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony etc. On being aggrieved by such order the present application under Art. 227 has been filed by the present petitioner firstly challenging the jurisdiction of this State Commission to entertain a dispute of such nature and also on the ,ground challenging the merit of the order as mentioned above. 2. According to the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the housing construction should not be construed as a service and, therefore it should not be within the jurisdiction of the State Commissioner. It is true under the Consumers' Protection Act jurisdiction can be assumed for deficiency in service and defect in goods. Accordingly, if the housing construction process is not covered by the definition of service, the jurisdiction of the Commission in such event is ousted. In reply to this particular point the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party has referred to mc a decision of the Supreme Court, in Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta reported in AIR 1994 SC at page 787 where it has been categorically laid down that housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or a statutory body was service within the meaning of Clause (0) of s. 2 of the Act. After such clear pronouncement and the amendment introduced in the definition of service, there can hardly remain any doubt as to the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain such dispute. 3. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the opposite party has challenged the maintainability of the application under Art. 227 before this Court on the ground that if there is no error in jurisdiction, Art. 227 will not be attracted and if there is any other illegality, the Act itself provides specific forum for appeal and other remedies and the Consumer Protection Act being an Act complete in itself and a special Act in nature, its provisions should be exhausted and its provisions should prevail over the general law. This view has also been taken by this Court in an earlier decision passed by the Division Bench in C.O. 2015 of 1992 by the then Chief Justice Mr. K.C. Agarwal and Justice M.G. Mukherjee in United Bank of India vs. Hirak Mukherjee and Ors., reported in 1995 (i) CRN at page 501. 4. This view has also been taken by this Court in an earlier decision passed by the Division Bench in C.O. 2015 of 1992 by the then Chief Justice Mr. K.C. Agarwal and Justice M.G. Mukherjee in United Bank of India vs. Hirak Mukherjee and Ors., reported in 1995 (i) CRN at page 501. 4. In the instant case in view of the amended definition of service and in view of the decision of the Apex Court, it is quite apparent on the face of the record, that the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction and from that point of view I accept the submission of the learned advocate for the opposite party that the application under Art. 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable in the present facts and circumstances of the case because adequate remedies have been provided by the said special Act for challenging the legality and the propriety of the decisions of the State Commission in the present case. 5. In the above circumstances, I think, it is not necessary to consider the other points on merits. 6. The application under Art. 227 is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Application dismissed.