USHA RANI GUPTA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review application by the complainant against the order of the Commission dated 10.4.90. It is alleged in the application that the Commission observed in the order, "it was never the case of the appellant that her registered address with the respondent was "2 Babar Road, New Delhi, as sought to be urged in the grounds of appeal". It is further alleged that it was an error apparent on the face of the record. The complainant has consequently prayed that the order of the Commission be reviewed.

(2.) We have heard the agent for the complainant. In the Consumer Protection Act no power of review has been conferred on the State Commission. It is well-settled that unless a power of review is conferred on a Court it has no inherent power to review its earlier order. In this view we are supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in case Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors. V/s. Pradvumansinghji Arjunsinghji, 1970 AIR(SC) 1273. In that case judicial work was entrusted by the State to an Officer under Saurashtra Lands Reforms Act, 1951. He set-aside the order of the Government passed earlier. It was observed by Hegde J. speaking for the Court as follows: "it is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. The question whether the Government's order is correct or valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set-aside or declared void by a competent authority. "

(3.) Consequently we hold that the application for review is not maintainable before us. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the review application with no order as to costs.