By this miscellaneous application, the petitioner has sought restoration of revision petition no. 701 of 2011 which was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution under order dated 30.05.2011. 2. In the above-mentioned miscellaneous application, the applicant/petitioner has stated inter alia the following: . That the Honle Commission has pleased to pass orders in the matter on 30.05.2011, his matter was called out once. Even on second call no one is present. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in default and for non-prosecution The copy of the order was mailed to petitioner by the Commission vide covering letter dated 09.06.2011 per registered post no. 4153 which has been received on 21.06.2011. 3. That the petitioner has moved requests to the Honle Commission on 24.03.2011 and 10.05.2011 to release his right to appear personally in the matter along with request to pass appropriate orders in the matter on the strength of material available on the record. A true and correct copy of request dated 24.03.2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure P 8. A true and correct copy of request dated 10.05.2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure P 9. 4. That the above requests (P 8 and 9) might have escaped the kind attention of the Honle Commission. The Honle Commission has seriously erred in not considering the said requests. If the Honle Commission would have taken cognizance of the requests the case would not have been dismissed merely for the want of prosecution 3. In support of his contention, the applicant/petitioner has also cited some rulings of the Supreme Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. 4. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid miscellaneous application, the revision petition is restored to its original number and is also decided at this stage (without notice) in view of the specific request of the applicant/petitioner to pass appropriate order in the matter on the strength of the material available on record, without requiring his presence or representation by any counsel on his behalf. 5. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2010 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the relief prayed for by the petitioner/appellant/complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu (in short, he District Forum could not be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, he Act. 6. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum alleging that the opposite parties (OPs)/ respondents (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., through its relevant officers) levied a higher tariff for the use of his telephone connection (no. 224652) in the State of Rajasthan @ Rs.149/- per month plus taxes as against Rs.111/- applicable for telephone connections with similar facilities in the State of Gujarat. The complaint was opposed by the OPs on various grounds, including that the rates of tariff applicable to telephone connections with similar facilities could not be identical in all places in all States in view of the various techno-economic factors and that the complaint was not about a matter which could be covered by the provisions of the Act. The District Forum accepted the submissions of the OPs and dismissed the complaint by holding that the nature of allegation in the complaint and the relief sought in respect thereof were such as could not be covered within the ambit of the Act. As already noticed, the State Commission has agreed with this view and dismissed the appeal of the complainant by its impugned order. 7. The complaint does not establish any element of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs because there is no pleading concerning the techno-economic factors that are used in fixing the tariffs for telephone connections of the type owned by the complainant/petitioner vis a vis those in Gujarat that he refers to by way of comparison. The mere contention that being a State-owned telecommunications service provider, the OPs were duty bound under the Constitutional provisions to treat all citizens equally in respect of telephone tariffs is neither here nor there. Moreover, as pointed out by the OPs, the complainant did not allege any deficiency in service in respect of his own telephone connection. Thus, the complaint could not be entertained under the provisions of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) read with section 2 (1) (o) or section 2 (1) (r) of the Act. 8. Finally, in the case of General Manager, Telecom v M. Krishnan and Another [(2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481], the Supreme Court has held as under: . In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protectin Act is by implication barred. 6. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under: 7-B. Arbitration of disputes (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the persons for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court. 7. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to the Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rules 443 of the Rules. 8. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach. In Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council it was held that the ational Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment. Inasmuch as the dispute raised by the petitioner/complainant relates to telephone tariff/bills, the remedy would lie, in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling cited above, under the provisions of section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 9. As a result, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.