Judgment : 1. The opposite party no.1 approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Barasat (hereafter the District Forum) with a complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter the Act) arraying the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. On registration, the complaint was assigned DF Case No. 219 of 2003. The complaint reveals that the opposite party no.1 purchased a tempo 3 wheeler mini-door pick-up van (hereafter the vehicle) from the opposite party no.2, a distributor of vehicles, on obtaining finance from the petitioner; that an agreement was executed by and between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner stipulating payment of a sum of Rs. 1,36,620/- by the opposite party no.1 in 22 monthly installments commencing from October 27, 2002; that it had been settled that the petitioner would collect the monthly installments from the opposite party no.1 through the opposite party no.2; that the opposite party no.1 had been paying monthly installments through opposite party no.2 who had been issuing receipts in his favour; that the opposite party no.2 lastly received Rs. 30,420/- acknowledging the same on its pad on the assurance that proper receipt would be issued later on which, the opposite party no.1 being an innocent person believed; and that all on a sudden the petitioner took possession of the vehicle on or about March 6, 2003 on the ground of default in payment of installments. Alleging that the services of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner suffer from gross negligence and that there is deficiency in service on their part and further that the opposite party no.2 has adopted unfair trade-practice for which the opposite party no.1 had suffered loss of income as well as monthly agony and harassment, the opposite party no.1 in his complaint prayed for direction on the respondents in the complaint to jointly or severally make good loss of Rs.63,000/-suffered by him as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. A further prayer was made for direction on the petitioner to hand over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1. 2. The petitioner filed an application on March 5, 2004 before the District Forum. A further prayer was made for direction on the petitioner to hand over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1. 2. The petitioner filed an application on March 5, 2004 before the District Forum. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable on the ground that the ambit and coverage of the Act does not extend to the petitioner and the opposite party no.1, having relationship of creditor and borrower. The District Forum took up the aforesaid application for consideration. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the available materials, the District Forum recorded a finding that the “complainant appears to be a consumer and there is prima facie material to proceed with the case against the opposite parties.” The application was thus rejected by order dated June 22, 2004. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an application for revision under Section 17 of the Act before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the State Commission). A prayer was made to set aside the order passed by the District Forum. The application was heard on contest by the State Commission. By an order dated September 27, 2006, the State Commission rejected the revisional application, being devoid of any merit. This order of the State Commission is under challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the State Commission as well as the District Forum erred in exercising jurisdiction vested in them. The said fora, according to him, did not at all appreciate in the proper perspectivetio that the relationship of debtor-creditor between the opposite party no.1 and the petiner is beyond the ambit and coverage of the Act. That apart, the agreement executed by and between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner contained an arbitration clause and, therefore, the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable. In support of his contention, two decisions of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Commission were relied on. He, accordingly, prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and further orders to quash DF Case No.219 of 2003. 5. Mr. In support of his contention, two decisions of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Commission were relied on. He, accordingly, prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and further orders to quash DF Case No.219 of 2003. 5. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1, contended that having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the cause of action for moving the District Forum cannot be segregated. The relief claimed is composite and is directed against both the opposite party no.2 distributor as well as the petitioner, the financer. The State Commission considered all aspects and opined that the questions that were raised by the petitioner are required to be looked into in depth and that refusal of the State Commission to interfere with the order of the District Forum in revision ought not to be tinkered with by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence. 6. He also submitted that the petitioner has a remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the National Commission) under Section 21 of the Act. Such remedy is an efficacious alternative remedy provided by the statute and therefore, there could be no reason for this Court to interfere since by reasons of the order impugned herein, the petitioner does not stand to suffer such degree of prejudice and inconvenience that interference at this stage would be imperative. The decisions of this Court reported in 2009 (2) CLJ (Cal) 685, 2009 (1) CLJ (Cal) 929 and 1995 (1) CLJ (Cal) 124 were relied on by him to urge the Court to dismiss the application for existence of alternative remedy. 7. In reply, Mr the subordinate tribunal or court has assumed jurisdiction that it does not otherwise possess, the Court. Roy contended that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and if may in its discretion interfere in an appropriate case. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 for persuading the Court against relegation of the petitioner to the alternative remedy provided by the Act. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the orders impugned and ruminated on the issue involved. 9. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 for persuading the Court against relegation of the petitioner to the alternative remedy provided by the Act. 8. I have heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the orders impugned and ruminated on the issue involved. 9. Section 21 of the Act empowers the National Commission to revise an order passed by the State Commission if it is of the opinion that the State Commission has acted in the manner stated in clause (b) thereof justifying interference. The remedy the Act provides to the petitioner is no doubt efficacious and speedy and normally the Court in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 227 would be loath to derail the procedure prescribed thereby. The easy way is to dismiss this application on the ground of existence of an efficacious speedy alternative remedy provided by the statute to the petitioner. However, since this application was presented on February 7, 2007 and was admitted on January 1, 2008, I do not propose to tread such easy route for dismissing this application. 10. The scope, extent and ambit of power exercisable under Article 227 of the Constitution have been elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and the principles for guidance in respect of exercise of such jurisdiction by a High Court are well-established. I need not refer to any particular decision here. However, on the authority of the said decisions, it is understandable that the power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly for the purpose of keeping the subordinate tribunal or court within the bounds of its authority and to ensure that it obeys the law. The High Court under Article 227 has no unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal. The High Court under Article 227 has no unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal. It is only in rare cases where the order impugned is perverse in law, or where a party would stand to suffer such irreparable loss and injury that he cannot be placed in the same position but for correction of the injustice caused, or where the error in the procedure that was followed shocks the conscience of the Court, or there has been grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principles of law or justice at the instance of the subordinate court or tribunal, that the Court in its judicial discretion may interfere to prevent gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court, it has been cautioned, must not act in exercise of its power of judicial superintendence as a bull in the china shop for regulating each and every stage of the proceedings before the subordinate court or tribunal. 11. Turning to the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the District Forum and the State Commission have rejected the application of the petitioner questioning maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum reaching a prima facie satisfaction that the complaint, at the stage the application was considered, cannot be held to be not maintainable in law. There can thus be no doubt that the decisions given by the subordinate fora while rejecting the petitioner’s application would not operate as res judicata at the time the District Forum gives its final decision on the complaint. The question of maintainability is yet to be considered finally by the District Forum and is still open for decision. Whether or not the opposite party no.1 ultimately has any right to relief against the petitioner and the opposite party no.2, either jointly or individually, can only be determined after evidence is tendered. The Act is a beneficent piece of social welfare legislation conceived in the interest of the consumers. Interference that would not advance substantial social justice should be eschewed. The statutory fora, which are creatures of the Act, are specialized bodies to look into complaints of consumers and to redress their grievance, if any. The Act is a beneficent piece of social welfare legislation conceived in the interest of the consumers. Interference that would not advance substantial social justice should be eschewed. The statutory fora, which are creatures of the Act, are specialized bodies to look into complaints of consumers and to redress their grievance, if any. If indeed the District Forum ultimately does not find the complaint to be maintainable against the petitioner, the complaint would be liable to be dismissed as against the petitioner. The special procedure embodied in the Act ought not to be derailed only because it is a distressing factor for the petitioner to await the decision of the District Forum. Law’s delay is proverbial. Having regard to the bursting dockets and the present infrastructural facilities that are available to dispense justice, some time being consumed in deciding a lis by a subordinate court or tribunal is inevitable. In the circumstances, can it be said that the orders impugned in this application result in such degree of injustice to the petitioner that the question regarding maintainability has to be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 at this stage? I think not. The subordinate fora duly heard the petitioner on the point of its objection. The orders passed are not bereft of reason. A mere wrong decision given by the subordinate court or tribunal at an intermediate stage of the proceedings, not affecting the merits of the rival claims, would not justify interference. No injustice has been caused to the petitioner requiring immediate correction. The petitioner would be entitled to raise the point of maintainability once again before the District Forum. The mere inconvenience that the petitioner might face in contesting the proceedings before the District Forum does not afford ground for the High Court’s judicial interdiction. I regret, if the High Court had not admitted this application and left the petitioner to agitate the point of maintainability before the appropriate forum, the complaint itself might have been decided finally one way or the other sparing the parties the agony of waiting for a final decision on the merits of their claims for more than half a decade. 12. In my considered opinion, no case for exercise of discretion has been made out. Without examining the correctness of the orders impugned, the same are not disturbed. 12. In my considered opinion, no case for exercise of discretion has been made out. Without examining the correctness of the orders impugned, the same are not disturbed. The application stands dismissed, without order as to costs. 13. The District Forum, having regard to the lapse of time since filing of the complaint, is requested to expedite its decision on the complaint. If the pleadings are not complete, the respondents in the complaint shall file their counter within three weeks from date; reply, if any, may be filed by the opposite party no.1 by a week thereafter. The time limit for completing the pleadings is peremptory. After completion of the pleadings, the District Forum may endeavour to decide the dispute, according to law, within four months. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any party. Since the opposite party no.2 has not been represented here, the petitioner shall communicate the direction for filing counter to it and file an affidavit to this effect before the District Forum. Needless to observe, the District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the complaint uninfluenced by any observation made in the orders upholding its order dated June 22, 2004. 14. In view of the above, C.A.N. 3361 of 2010 being an application for fresh interim order does not survive. It also stands dismissed.