JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J.: This application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgement and order dated 30th March, 1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Tribunal, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in SC case No. 397/A/94 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum which had directed restoration of electricity in Premises No. 4/25, Mordecai Lane, P.S. Dum Dum in C.D.F. Case No. 1516 of 1994. 2. The opposite party No.3, Smt. Parul Rani Roy is the mother-in-law of the complainant who is the petitioner before me. The petitioner Smt. Rani Roy has some matrimonial litigation against her husband and as relationship between them has become extranged, they are living separately. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that the electric meter from which she was enjoying electricity in her matrimonial home was disconnected for non-payment of bills, although she was agreeable to restoration of electricity in her matrimonial home on payment of arrear bills. Accordingly, a complaint was filed for re-connection of the electricity line or for giving her a new connection before the District Forum. The mother-in-law of the petitioner was subsequently added as a party defendant on her own prayer in the proceeding under the Act. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been living in her matrimonial home although a suit for divorce is now pending in the Civil Court between the husband and the wife. The mother-in-law of the petitioner has also filed an eviction suit for ousting the petitioner from her matrimonial home and the said suit is also pending in the Civil Court. The Calcutta District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of this case held that whether the complainant was a trespasser or not, could not be decided by it. However, the Calcutta District Forum held that as the complainant being the daughter-in-law of the opposite party No. 3 was residing in the matrimonial home, she was entitled to get electricity and accordingly, it ordered reconnection of the electric line from the existing meter on complainant's payment of all outstanding dues and reconnection fees. This order of the Calcutta District Forum was challenged by the mother-in-law Smt. Parul Rani Roy, the opposite party No.3 in appeal before the State Commission. This order of the Calcutta District Forum was challenged by the mother-in-law Smt. Parul Rani Roy, the opposite party No.3 in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by the impugned order had set aside the order of the District Forum by holding inter alia that a member of a family was not entitled to a new electric connection in the house against the opposition of the owner of the same. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been moved by the Complainant/Petitioner. 4. I have heard Mr. P.R. Mitra for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sinha for the opposite party No.3. I have also perused the orders impugned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution. After taking into consideration the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the State Commission has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Reasons are as follows :– Before I take up the point raised by the learned counsel for the parties on merits; let me now dispose of a preliminary objection as to the entertain ability of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.3 raised the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by submitting that in view of section 21(a)(ii) of the Act this application under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be entertained in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal before the National Commission. This submission of Mr. Sinha was contested by Mr. Mitra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after giving my anxious considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the preliminary objection as raised by the opposite party is devoid of any merit. Before I proceed further, I may mention here and now the relevant provisions regarding the filing of appeals before the National Commission. Before I proceed further, I may mention here and now the relevant provisions regarding the filing of appeals before the National Commission. Section 15 empowers any person who is aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum to prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Section 17 of the Act creates the jurisdiction of the State Commission. It runs as follows :- "17. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction – (a) to entertain – (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees (five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs); and (ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity." 6. From a perusal of section 17 of the Act, it is, therefore, evident that the State Commission has been vested with three types of jurisdiction viz. (1) original jurisdiction; (2) appellate jurisdiction; (3) revisional jurisdiction. 7. Section 19 of the Act provides as follows :- “Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission with in a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed." 8. From a plain reading of section 19 of the Act there cannot be any dispute that section 19 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission, may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of order subject to this that an appeal can be preferred only against an order made by the State Commission under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17. Section 17(a)(i) of the Act deals with the original jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any claimed exceeds 5 lakhs, but does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, an appeal shall lie to the National Commission only against the order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers under its original jurisdiction. The appeal from an order of the District Forum, therefore, shall lie only to the State Commission under section 17(a)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, there cannot be any second appeal to the National Commission. Such being the position and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am, therefore, of the view that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sinha for the opposite party as to the entertainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is devoid of any merit. Before I part on this preliminary issue, a single Bench decision of this Court as cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party must be taken into consideration. This decision as cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party is reported in 1996 (1) CHN 336 (Binod Kr. Das vs. Some Roy and others). In my view, this decision is clearly distinguishable. In that decision, a question was raised whether an order of issuance or summons by the State Commission is an appealable order or not in view of section 21(a)(ii) of the Act. In that context it was argued before the learned Judge of this Court that since order of issuance was interlocutory in nature and in view of the fact that the appeal lies against a judgement and not against an interlocutory order before the National Commission, question of filing any appeal before the National Commission against such interlocutory order did not arise at all. In this background, the learned Judge in the aforesaid decision held that even against an interlocutory order of the State Commission, the appeal lies before the National Commission under section 21(a)(ii) of the Act. Can this decision be applied to the facts of this case? The answer is ‘no’. It appears from the aforesaid Single Bench decision that an application for compensation for deficiency of medical service under section 17 of the Act was filed before the State Commission and on such an application, an order was passed directing notice or summons to be served on the other side. In that decision, it was held that although the interlocutory order was passed by the State Commission, but in view of section 21(a)(ii) of the Act, the appeal shall lie with the National Commission against such an order also. This is not the position in the present case. In this case admittedly a final order was passed by the District Forum. Against such final order of the District Forum, an appeal was taken before the State Commission. The State Commission had passed a final order by setting aside the order of the District Forum. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that in the present case, the State Commission was dealing with a final order passed by the District Forum in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In view of my discussions made above and in view of the relevant provisions of the Act, no second appeal shall lie to the National Commission against the final judgement of the State Commission as the State Commission was not exercising in this case, the original jurisdiction by entertaining a complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds 5 lakhs, but does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs that is the original jurisdiction of the State Commission. Since an appeal shall lie against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of power under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 of the Act only, the question of filing the appeal to the National Commission against the final order of the State Commission cannot arise at all. Therefore, the decision cited by Mr. Since an appeal shall lie against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of power under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 of the Act only, the question of filing the appeal to the National Commission against the final order of the State Commission cannot arise at all. Therefore, the decision cited by Mr. Sinha, appearing for the opposite party cannot be of any help to him for the purpose of holding that the application under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be held to be maintainable in law in view of the alternative remedy by way of an appeal under section 21 of the Act before the National Commission. The next decision which was cited by Mr. Sinha in support of his point regarding preliminary objection as to the entertainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is a decision in the case of Biswanath (@) Deb Kr. Pathak vs. Shyamal Kr. Pathak, 1995 (1) CLJ 139 . Again I am of the view that the said Single Bench decision of this Court is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that decision, the complaint was disposed of by Calcutta District Forum without notice to the petitioner. That petitioner filed an application before the District Forum for re-hearing of the case. On such application, the Calcutta District Forum passed an order directing the service of notice upon Shyamal Kr. Pathak. The respondent in that case, however, thereafter filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging the said order. It was held by the State Commission m that decision that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to re-open a disposed of case and as such the order of the District Forum was beyond jurisdiction. In the above context, the High Court dismissed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution by holding that the District Forum may decide a complaint ex parte, but no power has been given to the District Forum to set aside or review its own order and it was held in that decision that as the District Forum is a creature of statute, it cannot have a jurisdiction with which it has not been clothed. This decision of the Single Bench again, in my view, has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of this case. This decision of the Single Bench again, in my view, has no manner of application to the facts and circumstances of this case. I am not concerned in the present case, with this proposition of law. In the present case, I am concerned with the question whether appeal shall lie against the final order of the State Commission before the National Commission. Similar is the position in respect of the other Single Bench decision reported in AIR 1995 Calcutta 104 (A.N.Z. Grindlays Bank vs. President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others). In that decision, it was found that as an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner by way of an appeal, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution was not entertained. As discussed hereinabove, in this case, the petitioner has no other alternative remedy available to him and as there was no question of filing an appeal to the National Commission against the order of the State Commission, there is no reason to follow the decision in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank vs. President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, AIR 1995 Calcutta 104 in the present case. Let me, therefore, consider the matter on merits. Before I proceed further, it may be recorded that the parties did not raise any objection as to the jurisdiction of the forum to decide the nature of dispute raised by the parties before them. Also before me, no such dispute regarding jurisdiction of the forum was taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party. I have also carefully considered the memorandum of appeal and the grounds taken by the opposite party No.3 in the appeal before the State Commission and on perusal of the grounds taken in the said memo of appeal, I do not find any such ground regarding jurisdiction of the forum to decide the disputes raised before it was taken by the opposite party No.3. Such being the position in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, I proceed on the basis that the District Forum or the State Commission under the Act had the jurisdiction to decide the disputes raised by the parties before them. Coming back to the question whether the order passed by the State Commission was in the proper exercise of jurisdiction is now taken up for consideration. Coming back to the question whether the order passed by the State Commission was in the proper exercise of jurisdiction is now taken up for consideration. The Calcutta District Forum by its order dated the 18th August, 1994 passed the following direction :- “So ordered that C.E.S.C. Ltd. O.P. No.1 and 2 shall provide a new electric meter in the name of complainant as early as practicable on her making the application and compliance of all the necessary formalities at the present address of the complainant, ignoring the objection of Prul Rani Roy, Pradip Kr. Roy, their men and agents. O.P. No. 1 and 2 are further ordered to reconnect the electric line from the meter of late Rabindra Nath Roy on complainant's payment of all outstanding dues with R.C. fee for the use of the electricity by the complainant, ignoring the objection of Parul Rani Roy, her men and agents and this supply shall be maintained for the complainant till a new meter is installed in her name. Complainant's prayer for change of meter of late R.N. Roy in favour of complainant is disallowed. Parul Rani Roy is directed not to raise any objection of the execution of this order. Complainant may take the help of necessary police help in the implementation of this order by the C.E.S.C. Limited. The case is hereby disposed of.” 9. It is this order which was challenged by Parul Rani Roy, the opposite party No.3 in appeal. The State Commission, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has set aside the order of the Calcutta District Forum and held that no member of a family can be entitled to a new connection in the house against the opposition of the owner. Accordingly, it was held by the State Commission that it would not be prudent to order separate connection of electric energy in this case on the basis of section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act. On the merits of this order, I have heard Mr. Mitra for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sinha for the opposite party No.3. In my view, the State Commission has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner only on the ground that no member of the family would be entitled to electric energy without the permission of the owner of the house. P. Sinha for the opposite party No.3. In my view, the State Commission has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner only on the ground that no member of the family would be entitled to electric energy without the permission of the owner of the house. It is not in dispute that the electric meter in question stood in the name of the husband of the opposite party No.3 who was also the father-in-law of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that after the order of the Calcutta District Forum, the petitioner had made payments of all arrear dues relating to electric supply in the premises in question. It is also not in dispute that the C.E.S.C Ltd. has already restored the electric supply in the matrimonial home of the petitioner. I was also informed that such electric energy is still being enjoyed by the petitioner. In the memo of appeal filled by the mother-in-law of the petitioner, the mother-in-law of the petitioner has also admitted •that •the petitioner can enjoy or consume electricity from the existing meter to be transferred in her name and to pay electric bill to the C.E.S.C. Ltd. for the energy consumed by her so long she will remain in the house of the opposite party No. 3 and until she is evicted from the matrimonial home of the petitioner with due process of law. Therefore, even if I agree with the views expressed by the State Commission that no member of the family would be entitled to electric supply without the permission of the owner of the house, even then the State Commission, in my view, has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by totally rejecting the complaints field by the petitioner. In view of the stand taken by the opposite party No.3 in the memorandum of appeal and considering the subsequent event that the electric energy has already been restored by C.E.S.C. Ltd. in the matrimonial home of the petitioner, I am of the view that such supply of electricity in the matrimonial home of the petitioner from the existing meter shall continue until any further order is passed in the eviction suit filed against the petitioner by the opposite party No. 3 or any further order is passed after the disposal of the matrimonial proceeding pending against the petitioner which has been filed by her husband. It cannot be out of place to mention that such electric energy shall continue in the matrimonial home of the petitioner subject to her payment of electric energy to the C.E.S.C. Ltd. and it will be open to the C.E.S.C. Ltd. to disconnect the electric connection in the event it finds that the petitioner has not been paying the bill for such electric consumption in her matrimonial home. That being the position, the order of the State Commission is modified and/or set aside to the extent indicated above. The C.E.S.C Ltd. is directed to continue to supply electric energy to the petitioner from the meter of her father-in-law Rabindranath Roy (deceased) on payment of all dues of electric bills of the C.E.S.C. Ltd. Thus order is passed subject to any further order that may be passed either in the eviction suit or in the matrimonial proceeding. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. There will be no order as to costs.