JUDGMENT S.N. Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order/judgment dated 31.1.2018 as contained under Annexure-1, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has been assailed. 2. The fact of the case of the petitioner is that the complainant, opposite party no.1 has filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under section 17(1)(a)(i) alleging therein that there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in which an order has been passed by the Commission by making the proceeding as ex-parte, even though no notice has been served upon the petitioner, therefore the petitioner had got no knowledge about the aforesaid dispute case, hence the order passed by the Commission since is in gross violation of principle of natural justice, as such the same has been sought to be quashed by this court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the court by placing reliance upon the order-sheet as contained under Annexure-1 by showing that notices have been issued by registered post with A.D. on 03.3.2017 but without waiting for the service report, the notices issued against the petitioner, who was opposite party before the commission, has been held to be sufficient and thereby recording non-appearance, set the proceeding as ex-parte and proceeded with the matter and finally passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 93,69,576/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of the said order, failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum till realization. It is the further case of the petitioner that opposite party no.1, thereafter, has filed one execution case being Execution case No.3 of 2018 under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and then only the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Commission and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that opposite party no.1, thereafter, has filed one execution case being Execution case No.3 of 2018 under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and then only the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Commission and thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. This court, at this stage, has raised a question regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy available under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, learned Senior Counsel has argued out the case both on the issue of maintainability as also on merit which has been heard by this court at length. 5. The contention of the learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioner so far as maintainability of the writ petition is that since the order passed by the Commission is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice, as such the instant writ petition is maintainable under the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India because there is no complete embargo upon the High Court not to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather it is self-imposed restriction and when there is violation of principle of natural justice, as per the law already settled, writ will be said to be maintainable and since there is violation of principle of natural justice, hence the instant writ petition is maintainable. 6. This court has thought it proper that before going into the merit of the case, the maintainability of the writ petition is first to be decided. This court has gone into the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The main purpose to promulgate the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better protection of the interest of the consumers for speedy disposal of the grievance related to the consumers which is a benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summery trial. The authority under the Act exercises quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes. The act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summery trial. The authority under the Act exercises quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes. The consumer within the meaning of the Act, 1986 has been given the statutory right to file their complaints either before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at the district level or before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, subject to its pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 17 of the Act, 1986 stipulates about the jurisdiction of the State Commission, under which, as per sub-section 1(a)(i) the State Commission is to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claim exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore, after the amendment made by virtue of Act 62 of 2002 implemented w.e.f. 15.3.2003, earlier to that, the pecuniary jurisdiction was in between five lakhs to twenty lakhs rupees. The commission has also been conferred with the power to entertain an appeal against the orders passed by any District Forum within the State under the provision of Sub-section (1)(a)(ii), further the Commission has been conferred with the power under Sub-Section (1)(b) to call for 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 the 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 irregularity; for ready reference the aforesaid provision is being reproduced herein below:- " 17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission. 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 irregularity." The power of appeal has been provided under the provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1986 as per which any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the national Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed; provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period; provided further that no appeal shall be entertain by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less. It is evident from the provision of section 17 that the State Commission has been conferred with the power to adjudicate under its original jurisdiction, under appellate jurisdiction as also under revisional jurisdiction. It is evident from the provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1986 wherein express provision has been made that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal before the National Commission. It is evident from the provision of Section 19 of the Act, 1986 wherein express provision has been made that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal before the National Commission. It is further evident that under the provision of Section 19 there is no reference in the aforesaid provision regarding the appeal to be preferred if the order has been passed under section 1(a)(ii) or (1)(b). At present, this court is not concerned with the power conferred with the Commission U/s.(1)(a)(ii) or (1)(b), rather the present case is concerned with an order which has been passed by the Commission in exercise of power conferred under Section (1)(a)(i) for which, the express and explicit provision has been made under section 19 to prefer an appeal, hence there is availability of statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner since the State Commission has passed an order U/s.(1)(a)(i) of Section 17 of the Act, 1986. It is in this backdrop it is to be examined by this court as to whether on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal under section 19 of the Act, 1986, the instant writ petition will be held to be maintainable? 7. It is in this backdrop it is to be examined by this court as to whether on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal under section 19 of the Act, 1986, the instant writ petition will be held to be maintainable? 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this court that there cannot be any embargo upon the High Court not to entertain an application Under Article 226 of Constitution of India even though there is availability of alternative remedy since it is self imposed restriction by the High Court and law is well settled that if the order is without jurisdiction or in violation of principle of natural justice, writ can be entertained by the high Court and to bring this case under the fold of violation of principle of natural justice, it has been submitted that the order passed by the State Commission is without following the principle of natural justice since even in spite of the fact that notices issued by the Commission has not been served, the proceeding was set ex-parte and thereafter the final order has been passed, thereby the opportunity to defend has not been provided, hence the aforesaid order passed by the Commission is without following the principle of natural justice, as such the said order is amenable under the judicial scrutiny by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This court has gone through the order sheet annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition wherein it is evident from order no.2 dated 3.3.2017 by which notices have been issued to the opposite party by registered post with A.D. on the point of admission with a direction to the opposite party no.1 to take steps for service of notice by submitting requisites by 6.3.2017, thereafter on 6.4.2017 and 17.4.2017 SR not back. It is evident from the order dated 17.4.2017 that the Commission taking into consideration the provision of Section 28(A) has held the service to be sufficient and set the proceeding ex-parte, thereafter preceded for final hearing and accordingly final order has been passed. It is evident from the order dated 17.4.2017 that the Commission taking into consideration the provision of Section 28(A) has held the service to be sufficient and set the proceeding ex-parte, thereafter preceded for final hearing and accordingly final order has been passed. The sole question is as to whether the order by which the Commission has set the proceeding ex-parte can be said to be under the fold of violation of principle of natural justice, the same is to be scrutinized in the light of the provision of section 28(A) which stipulates the provision of service of notice etc. wherein the following provisions have been made:- ' 28A. Service of notice, etc. (1) All notices, required by this Act to be served, shall be served in the manner hereinafter mentioned in sub-section (2). (2) The service of notices may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to opposite party against whom complaint is made or to the complainant by speed post or by such courier service as are approved by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, or by any other means of transmission of documents (including FAX message). (3) When an acknowledgment or any other receipt purporting to be signed by the opposite party or his agent or by the complainant is received by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, or postal article containing the notice is received back by such District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee or by any person authorized by the courier service to the effect that the opposite party or his agent or complainant had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the notice or had refused to accept the notice by any other means specified in sub-section (2) when tendered or transmitted to him, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall declare that the notice had been duly served on the opposite party or to the complainant: Provided that where the notice was properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, a declaration referred to in this sub-section shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment has been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, within thirty days from the date of issue of notice. (4) All notices required to be served on an opposite party or to complainant shall be deemed to be sufficiently served, if addressed in the case of the opposite party to the place where business or profession is carried and in case of complainant, the place where such person actually and voluntarily resides." It is evident from the aforesaid provision as quoted above that all the notices required by this Act to be served, shall be served in the manner hereinafter mentioned in sub-section (2). Sub section (2) stipulates that the service of notices may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to opposite party against whom complaint is made or to the complainant by speed post or by such courier service as are approved by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, or by any other means of transmission of documents. Subsection (3) stipulates that when an acknowledgement or any other receipt purporting to be signed by the opposite party or his agent or by the complainant is received by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, or postal article containing the notice is received back by such District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee or by any person authorized by the courier service to the effect that the opposite party or his agent or complainant refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the notice or refused to accept the notice by any other means specified in sub-section (2) when tendered or transmitted to him, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall declare that the notice had been duly served on the opposite party or to the complainant. The aforesaid provision is in the case when the notice is served back with an endorsement given by the postal employee to the effect that the opposite party or the complainant had refused to take delivery of the postal article, provided that where the notices have properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgment due, a declaration referred to in this sub-section shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment has been lost or mislaid or for any other reason, has not been received by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, within thirty days from the date of issue of notice. Sub-section (4) stipulates for the deemed service of notice as per which all notices required to be served on an opposite party or to complainant shall be deemed to be sufficiently served, if addressed in the case of the opposite party to the place where business or profession is carried and in case of complainant, the place where such person actually and voluntarily resides. Thus sub-section (3) stipulates a case of refusal of the notice with an endorsement of the postal employee if the notice was properly addressed, a declaration referred in this sub-section shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgment has been lost or mislaid and not been received by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission within thirty days from the date of issue of notice and the same will be deemed to have been sufficiently served. Here in the instant case the notices have been issued on 3.3.2017 under registered post with acknowledgment due but service report has not back, as such the Commission, taking aid of the provision of section 28(A) of the Act, 1986, more particularly sub-section (3) and (4), has given a declaration of deeming service and thereafter set the proceeding ex-parte. Here in the instant case the notices have been issued on 3.3.2017 under registered post with acknowledgment due but service report has not back, as such the Commission, taking aid of the provision of section 28(A) of the Act, 1986, more particularly sub-section (3) and (4), has given a declaration of deeming service and thereafter set the proceeding ex-parte. The petitioner is claiming that he has not received the notice but it is evident from the material available on record, more particularly the address of the petitioner furnished by opposite party no.1 in the plaint of Execution Case No.3 of 2018 ( Annexure-3) wherein the address has been furnished as "Authorized Officer/Chief Executive Officer, M/s. Mani Tirumala Projects, Private Ltd. (Mani Tribhuvan), At - 9th Floor, 164/1, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata, 700054" and when the said address has been compared with the copy of agreement entered in between the petitioner with the opposite party no.1, as would be evident from Annexure-4 at page 29 wherein the address has been written as "Mani Tirumala Projects Private Limited having its registered office at Mani Square (IT), 9th Floor, 164/1, Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata, 700054, West Bengal, India", as such the address as stipulated in the aforesaid agreement is almost same to that of the address furnished by the opposite party no.1 in the plaint of the Execution Case No.3 of 2018 as under Annexure-3, the address upon which the notices have been issued by the State Commission and when in the Execution proceeding, notices have been issued on the aforesaid address furnished by the opposite party no.1, the petitioner has immediately in receipt of that notice as has been admitted by the petitioner at paragraph 4 of the writ petition which casts doubt upon the conduct of the petitioner to the effect that when the address furnished by the opposite party no.1 in the original complaint application ground has been taken that the notice has not been served but when on the same address the Commission issues notice in the Execution Proceeding, the same has been received by the petitioner. This prima facie shows that the petitioner, only in order to delay the original proceeding pending before the Commission, has, with ulterior motive, not accepted the said notice and now taking the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. This prima facie shows that the petitioner, only in order to delay the original proceeding pending before the Commission, has, with ulterior motive, not accepted the said notice and now taking the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, in my considered view, on the basis of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove this case will not come under the fold of violation of principle of natural justice, as such the principle laid down for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case of violation of principle of natural justice is not available to the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, there is a provision of appeal under section 19 of the Act, 1986 and it is settled that when there is statutory appeal available, exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be proper since the same will amount to encroaching upon the power of the Forum which has been created by the Legislation. In this connection Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nibedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337 , while dealing with situation of like nature, after discussing the principle to entertain a writ petition even in case of availability of statutory appeal and relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419 , has been pleased to hold at paragraph 18 of the said judgment that the Act, 1986 was enacted for the better protection of the interests of consumers by making provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes. The object and purpose of enacting the Act, 1986 is to provide for simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers who have grievance against defective goods and deficient services. This benevolent piece of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. Further at paragraph 19 it has been observed that prior to the Act, 1986, the consumers were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is a known fact that the decision of the litigation instituted in the civil court could take several years. Further at paragraph 19 it has been observed that prior to the Act, 1986, the consumers were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it is a known fact that the decision of the litigation instituted in the civil court could take several years. Under the Act, 1986, the consumers are provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy before the Consumer Forums at district, State and national level. At paragraph 21 of the said judgment reference of a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital reported in (2000) 7 SCC 668 has been made wherein the reference of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment is made, for ready reference both the paragraphs are being quoted herein below:- "11. The Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it should arrive at a conclusion based on reason. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever, brief in support of its conclusion by such a forum, is too obvious to be reiterated and needs no emphasizing. Obligation to give reasons not only introduces clarity but it also excludes, or at any rate minimizes, the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Unfortunately we have not been able to find from the impugned order any reasons in support of the conclusion that the claim of the appellant is 'unrealistic' or 'exaggerated' or 'excessive'. Loss of salary is not the sole factor which was required to be taken into consideration. 12. While quantifying damages, consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down for universal application. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge." At paragraph 24 it has been observed that Section 19 of the Act, 1986 provides for remedy of appeal against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 17. If sections 11, 17 and 21 of the Act, 1986 which relate to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, there does not appear any plausible reason to interpret the same in a manner which would frustrate the object of legislation. 10. This court, after close scrutiny of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, is of the view that when statutory appeal is available, entertaining the instant writ petition will not be proper, rather the purpose and object of the Act, 1986 will be frustrated. 11. This court, before parting with the order, thinks it proper to deal with the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petition. 11. This court, before parting with the order, thinks it proper to deal with the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petition. This court after going across the issue involved in the judgment reported in 2015 SCC Online Cal 10423 of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of HDFC Bank Limited and another v. Shibendu Ghosh and another , found that the petitioner of that case has preferred an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal against an order passed by the District Forum wherein the ex-parte order was passed against which an application was filed before the District Forum for vacating the ex-parte order and restoration of the plaint case but the said application was rejected by the District Forum against which an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1968 was filed before the State Commission of West Bengal who turned down to pass order to allow any opportunity of hearing on merit and challenging the said order the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has came to conclusion that the Commission has also been vested with power of Revision under section 17(1)(b), as such when the aforesaid point was raised before the Commission, the Commission ought to have gone into the merit of the claim of the parties exercising the aforesaid power, but instead of doing so the Commission has declined to interfere with the same, hence the order passed by the Commission has been quashed and the matter was remitted before the Commission for hearing the case afresh. In the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Manoj Kumar Jena v. Secretary, State Transport Authority and Others passed in W.P.(C) No.12341 of 2016 decided on 22.7.2016 , this court, after taking into consideration the fact that there is violation of principle of natural justice, hence relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , has entertained the writ petition. While in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad reported in 2017 SCC Online Bom 7459 where the factual aspect was that the first appeal which has been preferred by the appellant has been dismissed for default even before issuance of notice to the respondent, hence the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, by taking into consideration the fact that the appeal was dismissed in default has set aside the order. But the fact of the case in hand is quite different since in the instant case an ex-parte order passed by the Commission has been assailed in this writ petition even though there is a specific provision of alternative remedy of appeal provided under section 19 of the Act, 1986, as per the detail discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, since the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to entertain this writ petition even on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, hence on the fact of the case in hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. 12. In view thereof, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the provision of the Act, 1986, as such this court is not going into the merit of the issue as raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.