Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — The question raised in this Revision Petition is whether a litigant who has instituted a suit or other proceeding in a Civil Court after payment of “Court fee” can be regarded as a “consumer” who has “hired” or “availed of” a service on payment of consideration. The State Commission, Gujarat answered this question in the negative dismissing the complaint which was filed before it by the appellant-herein. Hence this Revision Petition by the complainant.

2. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid conclusion recorded by the State Commission as well as the reasons set out in the impugned order in support of the said view.

3. In entertaining and adjudicating upon a suit or other proceeding filed before it, the Court is acting in the exercise of the sovereign judicial power of the State and its is not rendering a “service” in pursuance of a contract between the litigant and the Court for which consideration has been collected. The dispensation of justice is conducted by the Court not as a quid pro quo for the Court fee that has been remitted. All sums levied and collected as Court fees go to the Consolidated Fund of the State and hence it cannot be said that the payment of Court fee was by way of “consideration” for the “hiring” or “availing of” a service from the Court. The State Commission was, therefore, perfectly right in setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint petition wherein the grievane put forward by the complainant was that there were serious deficiencies in the set up of the Civil Judicial Administration in the State of Gujarat.

4. The order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.

Revision Petition dismissed.