JUDGMENT : MIR DARA SHEKO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sujash Ghosh Dastidar, being assisted by Ms. Sankari Roy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed assailing the order No. 4 dated July 01, 2016 passed in miscellaneous application, being No. MA/552/2016 arose in connection with Complaint Case No. CC/58/2016 filed by the opposite parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. Admit. 2. Mr. Ghosh Dastidar invited attention of this Court to paragraph 4 of the application that on the very first date of appearance of his client one application was took out under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to attract attention of the State Consumer Forum to the Arbitration Clause No. 16 of the arbitration agreement. Copy of the arbitration agreement also has been furnished along with revisional application. Grievance is ventilated since the despite of having no dispute principally as against the prayer for referring the matter to arbitration by the opposite party in their written objection the State Consumer Forum declined such prayer. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below:- "The learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that it has been well settled that the Consumer Fora are not bound to refer the dispute to arbitration and the consumer complaint is maintainable in this Commission. We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record. In the decision reported in 2013 (2) CPR 756 (NC) [DLF Ltd. Vs. Mridul Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.] it has been held that the Consumer Fora constituted under the CP. Act are not bound to refer the dispute raised in the complaint on an application filed u/s. 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 seeking reference of the dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of valid: arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties. Relying on the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that there is no merit in this Miscellaneous Application." 3. Mr. Ghosh Dastidar relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court submitted for appropriate relief by captioning the order impugned as illegal and perverse. The cases referred to are mentioned below:- "1. M/s. S.B.P. and Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 450; 2. Mr. Ghosh Dastidar relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court submitted for appropriate relief by captioning the order impugned as illegal and perverse. The cases referred to are mentioned below:- "1. M/s. S.B.P. and Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 450; 2. Sudarshan Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Madhusudan Guha & Anr. an unreported decision (C.O. No. 2648 of 2012 dt. December 06, 2012); 3. M/s. Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Malay Burman & Anr. an unreported decision (C.O. 508 of 2016 dt. June 23, 2016); 4. M/s. Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Mr. Manas Kumar Mallik & Ors. an unreported decision (C.O. 4155 of 2016 dt. December 12, 2016); 5. M/s. Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sri Pijush Chakrabarti an unreported decision (C.O. 507 of 2016 dt. June 23, 2016); and 6. Auro Developers v. Mala Mukherjee, reported in 2012 (1) CHN (CAL) 543." 4. Perused the order impugned, text of the application supported by affidavit, materials on record as appended thereto and also the relevant portions of the decisions relied on. 5. Though in usual course service of notice is directed but in view of the established law which has come up so far after the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, and on an again has been formulated by the coordinate Bench of this Court attracting attention of not only the District Consumer Forum but also the State Consumer Forum but since it has gone in vain and the nature of the impugned order ex fade is so perverse and illegal, service of notice upon the opposite party is dispensed with and the matter is taken up for disposal right at this moment. This is done also for another cause so that the other side can be precluded from unforeseen harassment, misuse of process of law if upon notice he is so advised to find contest against such perverse order. 6. The application with the prayer for referring the matter for arbitration was submitted by the petitioners on their first appearance, the complainant though furnished written objection but principally did not oppose. 6. The application with the prayer for referring the matter for arbitration was submitted by the petitioners on their first appearance, the complainant though furnished written objection but principally did not oppose. Out of the grounds of objections the objections mentioned in paragraph 5 is quoted below:- "That it is a settled principal of law that if a complainant chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the Competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996." 7. Therefore the opposite party/complainant also could not offer any legal objection presumably due to existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement executed between themselves, except taking the plea that relief sought for by the complainant before the State Commission should not be denied. 8. Therefore, once again like previous coordinate Bench the relevant part from paragraph 18 from the case of M/s. S.B.P. and Co. (supra) is quoted below:- "Section 8 of the Act contemplates a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, on the terms specified therein, to refer the dispute to arbitration. A judicial authority as such is not defined in the Act. It would certainly include the court as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act and would also, in our opinion, include other courts and may even include a special tribunal like the Consumer Forum (See Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. and Another v. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385 )." 9. Before the coordinate Bench a similar matter was brought in where nonetheless of arbitration clause the learned Forum declined to refer the arbitration. The relevant part from the last page from the case of Sudarshan Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) is quoted below:- "Once the parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by the arbitration, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is clearly ousted by reason of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the law laid down in SBP (Supra), this Court is of the view that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint." 10. Then again in the similar situation in the case of M/s. Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the law laid down in SBP (Supra), this Court is of the view that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint." 10. Then again in the similar situation in the case of M/s. Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court had to interfere where the agreement contained with an arbitration clause. An application was filed for staying the proceedings and to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator but it was declined by the State Commission. In that occasion interference is made by referring the decision in the case of DLF Ltd. v. Mridul Estate Pvt. Ltd. The relevant part of the said decision is quoted below:- "In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of SBP & Company (supra) it is no more open to the State Commission to rely upon DLF Ltd. (supra) and Rosedale Developers Private Limited (Supra) to deny the relief to the petitioners." 11. Again in the case of M/s. Unnayan Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) wherein the application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was turned down by the District Forum and being aggrieved while State Commission was approached it and yielded no lawful result, this Court again had to interfere. The harsh observations of this Court in that occasion is also quoted below:- "Strangely enough the State Commission after noticing the said judgment of the coordinate Bench refused to accept the proposition laid down therein and acted contrary thereto relying solely on the judgment rendered in case of Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 Scale 294 and Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Assn. Of India & Ors. reported in (2011) 13 Scale 584 to the extent that the High Court cannot exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ignoring the availability of effective alternative remedy." 12. It is obvious that all the authorities though have been acting independently within the periphery of the relevant law and Act, but any authority is not in the enjoyment of the Constitutional power like Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is vested to this Court. It is obvious that all the authorities though have been acting independently within the periphery of the relevant law and Act, but any authority is not in the enjoyment of the Constitutional power like Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is vested to this Court. Whoever may be the other authority discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions are subject to the vigilation of the constitutional authority. Meaning thereby, where there is a departure in the process the constitutional authority either within Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot keep its eyes shut down. It is very unfortunate that despite bringing the decision of 7 Judges, that too of the Apex Court through one after another judgment of this High Court, the other being of the authority discharging judicial function has not been maintaining judicial discipline though its orders sometimes remain under surveillance of this Court. As a result of which instead of rendering justice simply injustice is being recurred. To express it more explicitly it can be well said that instead of maintaining scope of litigation it is being enlarged which is not the moto of any authority discharging judicial or quasi-judicial function. This Court has no more expression to criticise the impugned order save and except reiterating once again that the impugned order is so perverse and illegal by dispensing with service of notice, this Court on very first day has to interfere with the same for its quashing and setting aside with direction to the learned State Commission to rehear the application presented by the petitioner inviting attention of the Commission the arbitration clause so that appropriate order may be recorded in compliance with the order of the Apex Court followed by the several pronouncements of this Court referred to above. 13. Before departure, be it mentioned once again, has there been any other authority on which this Commission is wanting to rely upon that cannot override the rule of law established by the Apex Court that too by the decision of the Seven Judges Bench which has been followed on and again by this High Court to lay proper guidance to maintain by all the judicial or Tribunal functionaries subordinate to the High Court. 14. In view of the above the C.O. 2815 of 2016 is allowed. 14. In view of the above the C.O. 2815 of 2016 is allowed. Since it has been disposed of without serving notice to the other side for the reason assigned above, the department is directed to communicate a copy of this 'order' at once to the learned State Commission so that avoiding unnecessary delay the learned State Commission may act accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.