Counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in recording a finding that since it was a case of Pricing, the consumer fora will have no jurisdiction to go into the question of pricing; according to him, it was not a case of ‘Pricing’ but it was a case of unfair trade practice where the respondent has sought to charge increased price; the State Commission has not recorded any finding as to how it is a case of Pricing; Petitioner was proceeded ex-

-2-

parte before the State Commission and perhaps because of that, the State Commission may not have been in possession to appreciate the facts present on the record.  He prays that the order under appeal be set aside and the case be remitted back to the State Commission to decide it afresh after hearing both the parties.

Counsel for the respondent contends that it is a case of ‘Pricing’. 

The order passed by the State Commission is a very short order.  The State Commission has not recorded any finding as to how it is a case of Pricing.  Without elaborating further and recording our reasons, lest it may prejudice to rights of any of the parties, we are of the opinion that the State Commission should examine the matter afresh after hearing the counsel for the parties.  Accordingly, the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.4.2010.

-3-

Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months of the first date of appearance.

Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.