JUDGMENT 1. THE propriety of an order dated 12th November, 2008 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Paschim Midnapore in complaint case No. 58 of 2008 is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner. 2. THE petitioner contended that the complaint raised by complainant/ opposite party is not entertainable by the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner contended that the dispute between the parties can only be resolved by way of arbitration as per Section 95 of the West bengal Co-operative Societies Act. 3. ON perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that the said complaint is entertainable by the Forum as per provision of Section 2 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 as amended from time to time. 4. THE petitioner is aggrieved against such findings of the Forum as the petitioner is still of the view that the said complaint is not entertainable by the Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act as the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (d) of the said Act. Mr. Bhuinya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the provision of Section 3 of the said Act, the said complaint is not entertainable by the Forum. 5. MR. Bhuinya submits that the provisions of the West Bengal co-operative Societies Act regarding settlement of disputes by way of arbitration under Section 95 of the said Act has an overriding effect over the provision contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the provision contained in Section 143 of the West Bengal Co-operative societies Act, 1983. 6. ACCORDINGLY, Mr. Bhuniya, learned Senior Counsel invited this court to interfere of the order impugned. Heard the learned Counsel of the parties. Considered the materials-on-record. 7. EVEN assuming that Mr. Bhuniya is correct in his submission regarding entertainability of the said complaint by the Forum, but still then, this Court holds that the petitioner has chosen a wrong forum for ventilating his grievances before this Court in view of the provision contained in sectidn 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides for an appeal against the said decision of the Forum, before Appellate Forum namely the State Commission. 8. 8. IN my view, since an alternative Forum of appeal is available to the petitioner under the said Act and since the remedy by way of appeal is much more exhaustive, efficacious and speedy, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court refuses to entertain this revisional application. 9. THE revisional application is, thus, rejected on the ground of its entertainability alone. 10. THIS order will not prevent the petitioner to challenge the propriety of the impugned order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is made clear that while disposing of this revisional application, this Court has not considered either the merit of the impugned order or the merit of submission of Mr. Bhuniya with regard to the maintainability of the said complaint before the Forum. 11. IT is, thus, made clear that in the event such an appeal is filed before the Appellate Forum, the Appellate Forum is absolutely free to decide the said appeal on its own merit, notwithstanding rejection of this revisional application in the manner as aforesaid.