JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J. - Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri M.B.D.' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. The above Petition seeks for the relief of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Orders dated 17.10.2006, 13.08.2007, 29.10.2007 and 17.01.2008 passed by the District Forum and all proceedings initiated from the Order of attachment till the sale and handing over of the possession of the disputed portions to the respondent No.1. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner, are that in a Company Petition bearing No. 990/2002 for the winding up of respondent No.3, the Company Court appointed a Liquidator to take over the charge of the assets and manage the affairs of the respondent No.3 Company. It is further the case of the petitioner that in view of the said winding up proceedings and the appointment of the Liquidator the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no jurisdiction to proceed or continue with the complaint filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the respondent No.3. By Order dated 16.07.2004, the Liquidator was permitted to auction the property of the respondent No.3 and. consequently, the offer of the petitioner being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/ - was accepted. In the meanwhile, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, passed an Order dated 27.04.2005 in favour of the respondent No.1 and against the respondent No.3-Company to deliver the possession of the flat situated in the building constructed in the suit property. It is further the contention of the petitioners that this Order was without any jurisdiction as no permission was obtained from the Court where the winding up proceedings were pending nor was the Liquidator aware of any such proceedings. It is further the contention of the petitioners that on 05.05.2005, the Company Court at Mumbai, appointed a Court Receiver to hand over the possession of the said property and to execute the Deed of Conveyance. It is further the contention of the petitioners that on 05.05.2005, the Company Court at Mumbai, appointed a Court Receiver to hand over the possession of the said property and to execute the Deed of Conveyance. As such, the possession of the said property along with the structure therein was given to the Court Receiver on 11.05.2005 and a Conveyance Deed was executed by the Liquidator on 02.06.2006. It is further the contention of the petitioner that a warrant of attachment was issued by the District Forum on 17.10.2006 to attach the flat for enforcement of Order dated 27.04.2005. The petitioner learnt on 11.11.2006 about the attachment of the said flat as the warrant was pasted on the wall of the building and immediately thereafter, on 15.11.2006, an application was filed objecting to the said attachment before the District Forum. Inter alia, the contention of the petitioner was that the forum lacked jurisdiction as the said property was purchased lawfully by the petitioner in the said winding up proceedings. By Order dated 13.08.2007, the said application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. A Revision was preferred by the petitioner on 12.09.2007 against the said Order which was thereafter withdrawn. In the present Petition filed by the petitioner, a statement was made that the said revision would be withdrawn which was accordingly thereafter withdrawn. It is further their case that the possession of the said flat was taken on 06.02.2008 despite of the objections raised by the petitioner. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their reply to the present Petition, inter alia. contending that the petitioner has an alternate remedy to challenge the Order dated 17.01.2008 by filing a Revision. It is further the contention of the said respondents that the exercise carried out before the Company Court at Mumbai was without jurisdiction as, according to them, the co-operative Court from whom the Liquidator had taken possession, had no jurisdiction or powers to exercise such action in respect of the properties in Goa. It is further their case that the claim of the petitioner is without foundation and that the petitioner cannot claim any right to the suit flat. 5. It is further their case that the claim of the petitioner is without foundation and that the petitioner cannot claim any right to the suit flat. 5. At the hearing of the above Petition, Shri M.B.D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy within the provisions of Section 17 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the said provisions and pointed out that all the contentions raised by the petitioner including the claim of the petitioner that the proceedings were without jurisdiction before the District Forum can be raised in such Revision Petition. Learned Senior Counsel as such submits that it is well settled that when an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the question of any interference of this Court in a Writ Petition, does not arise. 6. On the other hand, Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response to the contentions of Shri M.B.D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, pointed out that the revision is maintainable under the provisions of Section 17 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, only in cases in which there is a consumer dispute. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as no consumer dispute is subsisting, the question of contending that the revision is maintainable is without any basis. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself had withdrawn the revision and, consequently, the question of relegating the petitioner to file such Petition is not justified. Learned Counsel further pointed out that a revision cannot be considered to be an alternate remedy and, as such, the preliminary objection of the learned Senior Counsel is without any basis. 7. Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, pointed out that the respondent No.5 is a bona fide purchaser of the suit flat and, according to him, in view of the action taken in accordance with law, the respondent No.5 has purchased the suit flat for valuable consideration. Learned Counsel as such submits that as respondent No. 5 is a bona fide purchaser, the question of impeding his rights with regard to the suit flat cannot be accepted. 8. Learned Counsel as such submits that as respondent No. 5 is a bona fide purchaser, the question of impeding his rights with regard to the suit flat cannot be accepted. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records. Section 17 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads thus: "17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission.-(1) 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 twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore]; 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 regularity. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,- (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.)" 9. On plain reading of the said provisions. it cannot be disputed that all the contentions sought to be raised, by Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. as found in the Petition, can be decided by the State Commissioner in such Revision. On plain reading of the said provisions. it cannot be disputed that all the contentions sought to be raised, by Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. as found in the Petition, can be decided by the State Commissioner in such Revision. Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said that the impugned Order cannot be challenged by the petitioner in such Revision Petition. Merely because the petitioner on its own has withdrawn the revision earlier by itself cannot mean that the petitioner cannot be relegated to file a revision in case such alternate remedy is found to be efficacious. 10. The contention of Shri M.B.D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, with regards to the jurisdiction of the proceedings initiated before the Company Court in Mumbai, are matters to be dealt with its own on merits in any such proceedings. In that view of the matter. I find that all such contentions including the contention of Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, that he is a bonafide purchaser, would have to be left open to be dealt with in such alternative proceedings if initiated by the petitioner. 11. The Apex Court in the recent Order passed in SLP No. 24228/2012 dated 06.08.2012. has observed at para 2 thus: "2. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter against the order of the Commission. However, while dealing with a similar issue this Court in Mohammad Swalleh & Ors. v. IIIrd All. District Judge, Meerut & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 94 , observed: "7. It was contended before the High Court that no appeal lay from the decision of the Prescribed Authority to the District Judge. The High Court accepted this contention. (sic no appeal lay)...On that ground the High Court declined to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge. It is true that there has been some technical breach because if there is no appeal maintainable before the learned District Judge, in the appeal before the learned District Judge, the same could not be set aside. But the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is true that there has been some technical breach because if there is no appeal maintainable before the learned District Judge, in the appeal before the learned District Judge, the same could not be set aside. But the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The High Court had come to the conclusion that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and improper. The High Court itself could have set it aside. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case justice has been done though as mentioned hereinbefore technically the appellant had a point that the order of the District Judge was illegal and improper. If we reiterate the order of the High Court as it is setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution then no exception can be taken. As mentioned hereinbefore, justice has been done and as the improper order of the Prescribed Authority has been set aside, no objection can be taken." (Emphasis added) In view of the above, it is not always necessary to set aside an order if found to have been passed by an authority/Court having no jurisdiction. Despite this, we cannot help but to state in absolute terms that it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer protection Act, 1985. Once the legislature has provided for a statutory appeal to a higher Court, it cannot be proper exercise of jurisdiction to permit the parties to bypass the statutory appeal to such higher Court and entertain petitions in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in the present case, the High Court has not exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. The case is one of improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is not expected of us to deal with this issue at any greater length as we are dismissing this petition on other grounds." 12. Considering the observations by the Apex Court, once a statutory a remedy is available to the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act. The case is one of improper exercise of jurisdiction. It is not expected of us to deal with this issue at any greater length as we are dismissing this petition on other grounds." 12. Considering the observations by the Apex Court, once a statutory a remedy is available to the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, there is no question of invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in [2003] 45 SCL 423(Cal) in the case of Narendra Mohan Lakhotia v. Pinaki Bhusan Sinha decided on 16.08.2002 and pointed out that in cases in which the proceedings which are challenged are without jurisdiction, a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. I am afraid that the said contention cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The petitioners themselves chose the forum by filing an application before the District Forum to seek a relief. Merely because such application has been rejected and which can be challenged in a Revision. it is not open to the petitioner to now contend that the above Writ Petition is maintainable as the whole exercise on the part of the District Forum is without jurisdiction. In any event, the respondents also pointed out that the basis of the claim put up by the petitioners is also without jurisdiction. All these aspects would be more efficaciously decided in a Revision Petition also as there are disputed questions of facts. 14. The Apex Court in another Judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 333 in the case of State of Goa & Ors. v. M/s. A.H. Jaffar & Sons, has observed at para 3 thus : "3. The appeal has been argued at length. Sri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the judgment with industry and precision. 14. The Apex Court in another Judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 333 in the case of State of Goa & Ors. v. M/s. A.H. Jaffar & Sons, has observed at para 3 thus : "3. The appeal has been argued at length. Sri Siraj Sait has attempted to support the judgment with industry and precision. But it does not appear necessary to decide whether the finding recorded by the High Court that the order of Commissioner being administrative in nature it could be reviewed by the State Government nor it is necessary to decide whether the Minister could exercise any power where the grant of lease is regulated by the Statute as in our opinion the remedy of revision having been provided by Sec. 30 of the Act, the proper course for the respondent was to approach the Central Government and not the High Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent expressed apprehension that the period of limitation provided in Rule 54 of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 having expired, the revision might not be entertained. The proviso to the rule, however, empowers the revising authority to condone delay if it is satisfied that the revision could not be presented for sufficient cause to condone the delay and we trust that the revision if preferred within four weeks from today shall not be dismissed as being barred by time." 15. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 2859 in the case of Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, has held at para 2 thus : "No reason has been given by the respondent for not availing of the remedy of revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent straightway filed a writ petition before the High Court where the High Court had re-examined the facts. The impugned Order of the High Court is set aside. The respondent will be at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy of revision if he so desires." Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said Judgments. it cannot be disputed that the revision provided under the statute is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner. The respondent will be at liberty to avail of the alternate remedy of revision if he so desires." Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the said Judgments. it cannot be disputed that the revision provided under the statute is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Apart from that, taking note of the contentions raised by the parties, there are disputed questions of facts which arise in the present dispute which can be considered by the forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, it would not be appropriate to consider such disputed question of fact in the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the above Petition cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner as the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy by preferring a revision under Section 17(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. At this stage. Shri V.A. Lawande learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that he should be protected with regard to limitation in filing such Revision Petition. Shri M.B.D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, have no objection in case the petitioners are protected with that regard in case such revision is filed within a specific period of time. Hence, in case the petitioner prefer such Revision Petition within a period of thirty days from the date of the Order, the learned State Consumer Commission may consider to condone the delay in preferring such Revision Petition. 17. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by preferring a revision before the State Consumer Commission. 18. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of