It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that State Commission has exercised its jurisdictional illegally and in a irregular manner, as Tmt. K. K. Ritha, Member should not have heard the appeal since she was Member of the Bench of District Forum also, which has decided the original complaint. Consumer complaint (No. 80 of 2005) was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Puducherry. District Forum disposed of the complaint, vide order dated 27.09.2007 and the Bench comprised of the following Members; (i) THIRU A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT. (ii) Tmt. T. SELLIAMMAL MEMBER. (iii) Tmt. K. K. RITHA, MEMBER. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner/O.P. filed First Appeal (No.11 of 2008) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Puducherry, which vide impugned order dated 14.10.2010, dismissed the appeal. Bench of the State Commission comprised of the following Members; (i) HONLE JUSTICE THIRU J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR PRESIDENT (ii) TMT. K.K. Ritha, MEMBER Since, TMT. K. K. Ritha, Member of the State Commission, was also one of the Member of the District Forum which has decided the original complaint, under these circumstances, she being a Member of State Commission, could not have heard the appeal against her own order. We are really surprised as to how she heard the appeal against her own order. Under these circumstances, patent illegality and irregularity has been committed by the State Commission in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we accept the present revision petition and remand back the matter to the State Commission with directions to constitute fresh Bench in which, Tmt. K. K. Ritha should not be a Member. State Commission shall make an endevour to dispose of the appeal, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.5.2013. Dasti to both parties.