PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (tate Commissionfor short), by which the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. We have heard the petitioner who has pleaded his case himself before us and perused the record. It is seen that the District Forum vide its order dated 27.9.2011 dismissed the complaint of the petitioner against the respondent Co. on the strength of the judgement of Honle Supreme Court dated 1.9.2009 passed in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr. [AIR 2010 Supreme Court 90] in which it has been held that since special remedy has been provided in section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act in respect of such disputes, the consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute pertaining to the telephones and telegraphic activities. This view has been confirmed by the Apex Court in a later case of Parkash Verma Vs. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24577/2010 dated 1.10.2010]. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Impugned orders of the Fora below being in line with the judgments of the Apex Court, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Consequently the revision petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.