JUDGMENT 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 or 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 incidental 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 herein earlier, this order was passed on 3rd May, 1994. Against this order, a writ petition was moved by the H.M.C. and another. The said application was, however, by a reasoned order on 3rd May, 1994 rejected by the District Consumer’s Forum, Howrah. As noted herein earlier, 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 moved by the complainant/petitioner. 4. I have beard Mr. Roychowdhury for the petitioner and Mr. Mukherjee for the H.M.C Before I proceed further with the merits of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, a preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mukherjee on the question of entertain-ability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Appellate Authority must be dealt with. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in view of the alternative remedy having been made available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, this Court should not entertain this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. This submission of Mr. Mukherjee is contested by Mr. Roychowdhury, appearing for the petitioner. According to Mr. According to Mr. Mukherjee, in view of the alternative remedy having been made available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, this Court should not entertain this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. This submission of Mr. Mukherjee is contested by Mr. Roychowdhury, appearing for the petitioner. According to Mr. Roychowdhury, the order impugned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution is illegal and without jurisdiction and in a case where the order passed was without jurisdiction, it is open to this Court in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution to entertain a petition even if the alternative remedy by way of an appeal was available to the petitioner. This submission of Mr. Roychowdhury could not be disputed by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the opposite party. Apart from that it is well-settled law now that the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution can entertain a petition against an order which is found to be on the face of it without jurisdiction. Therefore, in this case we are to see whether the order passed as quoted hereinabove by the Appellate Authority was without jurisdiction or not. There is no dispute that the appeal of the H.M.C. was filed with an application for condonation of delay. I have carefully read the order impugned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution. From a plain reading of the order, it appears to me that the Appellate Authority has straightaway admitted the appeal and granted stay of operation of the order of the District Consumer's Forum without dealing with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is also well-settled law now that question of admission of appeal cannot arise at all until and unless the application for condonation of delay is allowed by the Appellate Authority. Apart from that from a plain reading of the said order it does not appear that the Appellate Authority was in the knowledge of filing of an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act by the H.M.C. Therefore, from a plain reading of the impugned order it must be held that the order passed by it was without jurisdiction. Apart from that from a plain reading of the said order it does not appear that the Appellate Authority was in the knowledge of filing of an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act by the H.M.C. Therefore, from a plain reading of the impugned order it must be held that the order passed by it was without jurisdiction. Therefore, I have no other alternative but to set aside the order in the exercise of my power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am therefore, of the opinion that even in view of the availability of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under the Consumers Protection Act, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against the aforesaid impugned order. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The Appellate Authority is now directed to dispose of the application for condonation of delay within one month from this date after giving bearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Roychowdhury, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no further service of notice or copy of the application for condonation of delay need be served on the opposite party as they have already entered appearance in the appeal and also have received a copy of the application for condonation of delay. That being the admitted position, no copy of the application for condonation of delay need be served now by the H.M.C. to the petitioner. The H.M.C. will be entitled to move an application for stay afresh before the Appellate Authority for grant of appropriate order of stay during the pendency of the application for condonation of delay. If such an approach is made, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the said prayer in accordance with law after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. 8. The learned Advocate for the opposite parties is also directed to serve a copy of the application for stay upon Mr. Ghosh, by tomorrow. The Appellate Authority shall decide the application for stay; if moved, after giving hearing to the parties and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law... ............ application for condonation of delay is allowed. 9. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order is set aside. 10. Ghosh, by tomorrow. The Appellate Authority shall decide the application for stay; if moved, after giving hearing to the parties and by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law... ............ application for condonation of delay is allowed. 9. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order is set aside. 10. The revisional application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the dispute as to whether the opposite party was entitled to an order of stay which shall be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Let this order be sent down to the Court below by a special messenger at the cost of the petitioners and such cost shall be put in by Thursday next, i.e. 8th January, 1998. Learned Advocates for the parties may be entitled to note down the gist of this order for communication and the State Commission, West Bengal is directed to act upon such communication.