ORDER

The matter was passed over. 2. On the second call also none is present on behalf of the appellant . 3. Present appeal has been received by post on 20.1.2012. 4. It was listed before this Commission for admission hearing on 20.1.2012. Since, none was present on behalf of the appellant on that day, notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant for today. 5. Notice issued to the appellant has been duly served by Regd. AD post. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant. 6. Appellant has also sent an application by post for appointment of amicus curiae. 7. No ground is made out for appointment of amicus curiae in this case. 8. We have perused the record of this case. 9. Grievance of appellant is that respondent/opposite party while working as Executive Engineer of Baripada Electric Division had inflected irreparable cause by disconnecting the Electricity to his house, forcing him to remain in dark from December, 2003 to April, 2008. It has caused damages amounting to Rs.26,65,000/-. 10. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cuttack (for short as tate Commission dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order dated 14.10.2011, observing as under; lleging deficiency in service, this Consumer Complaint has been filed by the complainant amesh Chandra Meher against the opposite party arbeswar Bhuyan, Former Executive Engineer (NESCO), Baripada Electric Division, Baripada presently D.G.M. (NESCO) Januganj in the district of Balasore. On a bare reading of the complaint, we find that alleging financial loss to the tune of Rs.26,65,000/- on different counts, the complaint has been filed but it does not make out any head and tail and we are at a loss to understand how this complaint is maintainable after lapse of more than 3 years of reconnection of the electricity which was done in last part of April or first part of May, 2008. In such circumstances, we find that this complaint is bereft of any merit. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the Consumer Complaint. 11. As per appellant own case, cause of action arose from December, 2003 to April, 2008, whereas complaint was filed before the State Commission on 21.9.2011. On the face of it, complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ct. 12. Honle Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) took view of the observations made in case State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, as under:- . It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, hall not admit a complaintoccurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. In para No.13, it has been held by the Honle Supreme Court; he term ause of actionis neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide impo