The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.01.2012 in which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission for non-prosecution. Nearly two months later, a review application was filed before the State Commission on 19.03.2012.   This also came to be dismissed on 10.01.2013 in keeping the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Versus Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr., in Civil Appeals No. 4307 of 2007 with No. 8155 of 2001, decided on 19.08.2011.  The Apex Court has very clearly laid down as under:

          “34.   On a careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute.  The District Forums and the State Commissions have not be given any power to set aside ex-parte orders and the power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the statute cannot be exercised.

35.    The legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex-parte orders.  Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court.  The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers.  We have carefully ascertained the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.”

2.      The revision petition challenging the above two orders of the State Commission itself has been filed with delay of 331 days, computed from the date the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution.  A perusal of the application for condonation of this inordinate delay shows that it carries no explanation for the long time gap between the dismissal of the appeal and the filing of the review application, even if the petitioner or his counsel was under the impression that such a review was permissible under the law.

3.      It is evident from the facts of the case as well as the condonation application filed that the period of time between the dismissal of the appeal on 24.01.2012 and dismissal of the review application on 10.01.2013 has been spent in pursuance of a remedy which, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court and provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was not available to the petitioner.  Therefore, the question of accepting this period as time justifiably is spent would not arise.

4.      In the result, delay of 331 days remains unexplained with any logically acceptable explanation.  The revision petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of limitation.