Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri, President — This Revision Petition dated 13.8.1997 has arisen out of following facts :

252 complaints by different complainants were instituted against Tirupati Associates and Others. It appears that common question of law and facts were involved. The proceedings were recorded in the complaint titled Madhu Mehta v. Tirupati Associates and Others. On an application made by the complainants. District Forum-I, where the complaints were then pending allowed amendment in the complaint. It further appears that notice was ordered to be issued in the amended complaint to the opposite parties which was returned unserved by the Postal Authorities. It further appears that District Forum observed service of notice by publication in a newspaper. At that stage, the said complaints were transferred from District Forum-I to District Forum-IV(Nand Nagari) on 8.7.1997; District Forum directed publication of the notice in the newspaper and adjourned the case to 11.3.1997. On that date Mr. A.N. Gupta, Authorised Representative of a fairly large number of the complainants requested the District Forum to let him know the proforma in which the notice was to be published. He also apprised the District Forum that he had earlier approached the office of the District Forum with a similar request and had not been given any proforma. In fact, he had made an application for a similar purpose on 16.5.1997on which it was directed that the same be put up on the date fixed for the main case. The District Forum imposed Rs. 250/- as costs and adjourned the case to 14.8.1997. The present Revision Petition was filed on 13.8.1997, as the complainants apprehended that the complaints may be dismissed, a prayer had been made for staying further proceedings before District Forum-IV. This Commission while issuing not stayed further proceedings in the complaints by order dated 14.8.1997. The said order was served to D.F.-IV only on 20.8.1997. In the meanwhile the District Forum dismissed all the complaints by order dated 14.8.1997. A copy of which has been made available along with brief factual report made by District Forum-IV. In the order, it is noted that none appeared for the complainants till past 1.30p.m. and that the file showed that no steps were taken by the complainants to get the service on the respondents effected by publication as directed. The conclusion reached by the District Forum was that the complainants were not interested in pursuing the case and accordingly Complaint No. 1418/97 along with 246 connected complaints were dismissed.

2. Mr. A. N. Gupta made another application dated 8.9.1997 for restoration of the aforesaid complaints dismissed by order dated 14.8.1997. Ms. Leenima Thakur, who represented about 50 odd complainants also appeared and she adopted the stand taken in the Revision Petition as also the additional application made by Mr. Gupta.

3. Ordinarily in a Revision Petition, the record of the Forum concerned is sent for. In the present case, however, this is not necessary as the certified copy of the order dismissing the complaints has been made available in District Forum-IV. In order to avoid unnecessary delay, we dispense with the requisition of the records from the District Forum. Notice was sent to the District Forum and in reply certified copy of the order together with the brief factual report had been sent by the Forum as stated earlier.

4. Procedure for dealing with a complaint has been laid down under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is well-known that the complainant is not required to deposit any process fee. It was the function of the District Forum not only to send notice of the complaints to the opposite party but also to decide the form in which the notice was required to be published. The complainants made repeated efforts to ascertain the form of proposed notice. The same was not intimated to their learned Authorised Representative. Instead, the application was directed to be pu