BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. SASMITA MOHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits.

(2.) Insofar as the question of condonation of delay is concerned, the main order was passed on 31.1.2003 in CD Case No. 21 of 2000. An application for review was filed knowing fully well that the State Commission had no power to review its own order. It is not a case where the appellant did not file its written version. If no body appeared on behalf of the appellant before the State Commission then it has to blame itself. It may be mentioned that in terms of Sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission, the District Forum/State Commission/National Commission should proceed to settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice. It may be further mentioned that Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in the Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. The only ground on which the review of the order was sought was that principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Since the provision of review in regard to National Commission, was inserted only w.e.f. 15th March, 2003 without making any amendment in the procedure applicable to the State Commission in Section 18, it would indicate that the appellant kept review application pending to take chance. Would it be a ground to ignore the time wasted in moving review application in view of the above provision. The period of limitation would start from the date of main order and not from the date of order dismissing the application for review. We feel that it would not be possible for us to ignore the period. A wrong advice may be a ground for condonation but a wrong advice given by a person who was supposed to pursue such matters regularly before the State Commission, could not be a ground to condone the delay, on this ground.

(3.) The copy of application for review Misc. Case No. 1783/2003 filed which is placed at pages 20-22 does not disclose the date of filing the application. Even the synopsis does not disclose the date of filing of the miscellaneous application excepting that it was moved in the year 2003. This application was moved despite the Counsel was expected to know. It was dismissed vide speaking order dated 8 2.2006. Annexure A-4 mentioning that the State Commission had no statutory powers to review its own orders. But, despite this fact another application was filed for recalling order dated 3.1.2003 along with application for condonation of delay. It was rightly dismissed. The appellant casually applied copies one after the other at his own leisure, as if there was no urgency.