IMPORTANT POINT
Review petition is not maintainable before State Commission.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Shri Narinder Kumar Singhla, Auth. Rep. of the respondent/complainant also present.

2. The appeal was dismissed in default by the State Commission. The order dated 5.5.2014 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President, State Commission, Punjab runs as under:

“No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. In fact the appeal was fixed for the payment of cost, which was condition precedent for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On account of the non-payment of this cost, the application is dismissed and the appeal stands dismissed as barred by time.”

3. The revision petition was moved before this Commission after a delay of 84 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel appearing before the State Commission has been repaneled.

4. In the application for condonation of delay, it is explained that the impugned order was passed on 5.5.2014 by the State Forum. Immediately on 6.5.2014, an application for recall of the said order was drafted. The application for recall of the order was dismissed on 21.5.2014 and the intimation of passing of the said order was given to the petitioner-Bank by its counsel, Shri Jai Gopal Goyal only on 26.9.2014. He gave a legal advice and petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Hon’ble High Court, which was also dismissed. The Assistant General Manager advised to rather prefer an appeal before this Hon’ble Commission. The present petition was filed on 20.10.2014.

5. We are not satisfied with such like contentions. There is no provision in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that a review petition lies with the State Commission. The Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 541: 2012 (1) CPR 78 (SC) which was announced as back as in the year 2011, unequivocally debarred the State Commission for reviewing its own orders. It is also well settled that no writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India lies with the High Court. The Supreme Court has decided this question time and again. The petitioner/complainant has left no stone unturned in harassing the complainant everywhere. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is involved therein as per the complaint. Though no such amount has been quantified by the lower forum but a bare look on the order of the District Forum clearly goes to show that this was not a very huge amount. It is strange that for such a small amount, State Bank of Patiala spent a large amount on this litigation. However, in the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the order passed by the State Commission, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, which be paid to the complainant through bank draft before the State Commission on the next date of hearing. Last opportunity granted to the petitioner/opposite party. The petitioner will also pay the costs as ordered by the State Commission. That be also paid on 1.5.2015 when the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on that day.

The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Revision Petition disposed of.

**********