Heard. 2. Case of petitioner/complainant is that, respondent has withdrawn the facility of network connection provided to the petitioner. Thus, being aggrieved by the action of the Respondent/Opposite Party, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. 3. Before the District Forum, respondent filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. 4. District Forum, vide order dated 5.5.2011, dismissed the application of the respondent. 5. Being aggrieved, respondent filed a revision petition before the State Commission, which vide impugned order dated 31.1.2013, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. 6. Now, petitioner has filed the present revision. 7. We have heard Shri Amar Singh, Authorized Representative of the petitioner. 8. Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed in a revision petition. Prima facie, no revision lies against order passed in a revision. Hence, present revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. 9. On merits, it has been stated by the Authorized Representative that respondent is a private service provider and India Telegraph Act, 1885 is not applicable in this case. He has relied upon the decision of Honle Supreme Court in eneral Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004 10. In M.Krishnan (supra), the Apex Court held ; . In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. 6. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under ; -B :- Arbitration of Disputes (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or 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 Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 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 Tranasport Corpn. 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. 11. In view decision of in M. Krishnan (supra), there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Hence, present revision petition being not maintainable, is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to cost.