ORDER B.P. Katakey, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhary, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner; against whom a proceeding under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") had been initiated by the present respondent, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in challenging the order dated 26-10-2009 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "State Commission") in Appeal No. FA 17/2009 preferred by the present respondent challenging the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, "District Forum") in case No. CC 33/2007. By the said order dated 26-10-2009, the appeal preferred by the present respondent has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the learned District Forum in the aforesaid proceeding. The learned State Commission has granted the relief claimed by the present respondent by holding that the respondent is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act. 3. According to the petitioner, it is evident from the materials made available before the learned District Forum that the respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act as the goods were carried for commercial purpose and as such the District Forum as well as the State Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent, which was in fact dismissed by the District Forum by holding that the present respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act. The learned Sr. Counsel submits that even though there is a provision for appeal under Section 19 of the Act to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, "National Commission") against the decision of the State Commission, since the order of the State Commission is illegal being without jurisdiction the respondent being not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Sr. The learned Sr. Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Hooghly Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Nemai Chandra Ghosh reported in AIR 2007 Calcutta 230. 4. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, had contended that the scope of interference, with the order passed by the State Commission, by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, which jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, whether the respondent is a consumer is a matter of fact, which requires examination of the materials made available before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission and the finding relating to the consumer as recorded by the learned State Commission can, therefore, only be agitated in an appeal to be preferred before the National Commission under Section 19 of the said Act, which question cannot be gone into by the writ Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidences on record, in exercise of the said jurisdiction. 5. The scope of interference with an order passed by the subordinate Court or the Tribunal in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Such jurisdiction is purely supervisory over the records and proceedings of the subordinate Court or Tribunal to ensure that such Court or Tribunal functions in accordance with law. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in far and rare cases as well as sparingly. Such jurisdiction cannot be exercised for correcting the error of judgment of subordinate Court or Tribunal. Only self evident or patent error can be corrected in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Court and also it cannot re-appreciate the evidences on record. Such jurisdiction is exercised to keep the Court or Tribunal within the bounds of law. 6. The question whether the respondent is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act is a question of fact. Such jurisdiction is exercised to keep the Court or Tribunal within the bounds of law. 6. The question whether the respondent is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act is a question of fact. The learned State Commission has recorded the finding on such question of fact on the basis of the materials available on record. This Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record on the basis of which the State Commission has recorded the finding of fact that the respondent is a consumer within the meaning Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act. Such finding of the State Commission can only be questioned or interfered with in an appeal provided under Section 19 of the said Act before the National Commission. 7. The Calcutta High Court in Hooghly Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. (supra), has held that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with any order passed by the subordinate Court or the Tribunal even when such order is appealable, if such order has been passed without jurisdiction, in other words, if there is jurisdictional error in passing such order or if the order impugned is perverse. 8. I respectfully disagree with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the said judgment insofar as it relates to the interference of an order passed by the subordinate Court or Tribunal in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when such order is perverse, i.e. not based on the evidences on record, eve if such order is appealable. The reason being, the High Court in exercise of such jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidences on record and come to a finding different from the finding of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or the Tribunal, which is the function of the appellate authority. Each and every jurisdictional error also is not open to challenge in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court can exercise such jurisdiction if the subordinate Court or Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to entertain a proceeding. 9. In the instant case, it is not that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent. The High Court can exercise such jurisdiction if the subordinate Court or Tribunal had no jurisdiction at all to entertain a proceeding. 9. In the instant case, it is not that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent. The question whether the complainant is a consumer or not is different from the question of lack of jurisdiction of the District Forum or the State Commission. As noticed above, the State Commission has on the basis of the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the respondent is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such finding, as noticed above, cannot be disturbed in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as in that case this Court has to re-appreciate the evidences on record, which cannot be done in exercise of such jurisdiction by this Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned in the present petition does not require, any interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence, the present petition is dismissed. 11. However, it would naturally not preclude the present petitioner to prefer appeal before the National Commission under Section 19 of the said Act, if so advised. Petition dismissed