IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no irregularity in the orders passed by the State Commission, the same cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—On 01.9.1990, an advertisement was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the newspapers, inviting tenders for the supply of the Ni-Cd batteries 10.8 Volt for use in 3 Watt VHF Radio Set RC-2203, manufactured by Uptron. The tender documents dated 20.8.1990 expressly stipulated that the battery discharge time should be 3-4 hours. It was further stated in the tender documents that the National Security Guard, which had issued the said document would like to conduct user trial at its premises at no cost, no commitment basis and the tender should provide two sample batteries for users’ trials, on tender opening date. It was further stated that the approved suppliers / contractors shall be deemed to have carefully examined the conditions and qualitative requirements of the goods to be supplied and if there was any doubt, he should qualify the same with the Group Commander, HQ NSG, before submitting his tender. The appellants submitted their tender vide letter dated 11.10.1990, offering to supply the required batteries. It was stated in the said letter that after-sale-service will be for 12 months with no cost, but not for damaged ones. The appellant thus accepted an order for supply of batteries, as per the specifications given in the tender documents, which expressly required that the discharge time of the batteries should be 3-4 hours, whereas its recharging time should be 4-6 hours. The appellant having supplied 1303 batteries, full payment for the said supply was released to it and later the security deposit made by the appellant was also released. The case of the complainant / respondent No.1 Union of India is that the batteries supplied by the appellant were defective. Vide letter dated 14.10.1991, the appellants were informed by the complainant that the batteries supplied by them were functioning to the optimum efficiency, few defective batteries had been brought to the workshop for replacement if required. The appellant responded vide its letter dated 23.10.1991, stating therein that the action had been initiated by them with a view to sort out the matter and they expected the Chief Technical Operator of the manufacturing unit to be with them on 28.10.1991, by which date they would make their service available to the entire satisfaction of the users. A joint inspection of the defective batteries was then carried out on 02.12.1991 by the appellant, along with a representative of the Hindustan General Industries Ltd. and they attributed the below standard performance of the batteries to thin connecting strips, defective foil of cells and poor quality of terminals. Vide letter dated 14.1.1992, the appellants informed the complainant that they had deputed a representative to the manufacturing unit at Hyderabad to come back with three amended batteries and that to reinforce the confidence of the complainant they were extended the guarantee period from 12 months to 15 months. Since the needful was not done, another joint meeting was held on 13.9.1992, in which the representatives of the appellant as well as the manufacturing unit were present. It was decided in the said meeting that the defective batteries be sent to factory of Hindustan General Industries at Gurgaon for repair and modification, they being the collaboration or affiliated office of the Hyderabad based manufacturer of the batteries. Pursuant thereto, 1296 batteries were sent to the unit at Gurgaon out of which 532 batteries were able to meet the requirement of the complainant after repairs / modifications, whereas the remaining 764 batteries remained with the appellants. The said 764 defective batteries were not replaced. According to the complainant, vide their letter dated 22.5.1992, the appellant requested the complainant to provide 12 chargers at the place where the batteries were undergoing charging exercise for the p