This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner chairman Rajasthan Housing Board and others against the order dated 31^st  January 2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 12 of 2018.  By way of the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 5-12-2017 passed by the District Forum rejecting the application dated 6th July 2017 moved by the petitioners to set aside the order dated 8.5.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short ‘the District Forum’) wherein the District Forum passed ex-parte order against the petitioners.

2.      Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners and the District Forum issued notices on 14th March 2017 to the opposite parties. On   8.5.2017 the forum recorded that notices to opposite party no. 3 and 4 were served and they were proceeded ex Parte as none was present. The District Forum further ordered that one month had passed after the issuance of the registered notice to respondent no. 1 and 2  and therefore they were also preceded ex-parte as none was present on their behalf. The next date was fixed on 6th July 2017. On this date, the petitioners filed an application along with the written statement for setting aside ex Parte order dated 8th May 2017. This application was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 5th December 2017.  Petitioners preferred appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2018 of the State Commission.

3.      Hence the present revision petition by the petitioners.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the State Commission has not considered the order dated 8th May 2017 and has only considered the order dated 5th December 2017 passed by the District Forum. The main prayer in the application dated 6th July 2017 was to set aside ex Parte order dated 8th May 2017 and to take the written statement on record in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And another vs. M/s. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And another [Civil Appeal No…..of 2017 (D. No.2365 of 2017) decided on 10.2.2017.  Appeal was filed before the State Commission against the order dated 5^th December 2017 dismissing this application dated 6^th July 2017. Thus, clearly, the whole matter which was raised in the application dated 6^th  July 2017 was before the State Commission and the State Commission should have considered the Appeal as having been filed against the order dated 8-5-2017 also.  It was further stated by the learned counsel that the District Forum assumed service on the petitioners as the registered notice did not come back within the period of 30 days. First of all, there was no proof of service on the petitioners and secondly even if the service was presumed, it can only be presumed on the expiry of 30 days from the date of issue of registered notice. The Estate forum has not given any specific date for deemed service. Even if service is deemed on the petitioners, they were entitled to get at least 30 days for filing the reply. In the present case, notice was issued on 17^th, March 2017 and the notice can be assumed to have been served only on April 17th 2017.  Thus,  the petitioners were entitled to file the written statement upto 17^th May, 2017 at least, however the ex parte order was passed on 8^th  May 2017 itself when statutory period for filing the written reply had not expired. Accordingly, order dated 8.5. 2017 was totally without jurisdiction and the State Commission should have quashed this order and should have remanded the matter to the District Forum. It was requested that the order of the State Commission and the Order dated 5th December 2017 as well as order dated 8th may 2017 passed by the District Forum should be set aside and petitioners be given opportunity to file the written reply before the District Forum so that the petitioners are able to put their defence before the District Forum.

5.      I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the material on record. State Commission in its order has clarified that the appeal is directed against the order dated 5th December 2017 passed by the District Forum and has upheld the order of the District Forum dated 5. 12 .2017 in the light of the law that the District Forum does not have any power to review its own order. The first part of the appeal clearly states that the appeal is directed against the order dated 5th December 2017 passed by the District Forum. Even in the prayer clause the order dated 5-12-2017 is mentioned twice. This may be an inadvertent typing error but the same cannot be verified as the copy of the original appeal has not been filed. The prayer mentions the following:-

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this appeal filed by the appellants may kindly be accepted and allowed and further the impugned order dated 5.12.2017 and order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV in Complaint No.231/2017.  Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board may kindly be quashed and set aside and further the reply filed by the appellant RHB may kindly be taken on record.

        Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the appellants.  And further the Cost of the appeal may also be awarded in favour of the appellants.”

6.       Therefore, it is not certain that the order dated 8th May 2017 was also challenged in the appeal filed before the State Commission. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order passed by the State Commission because the order dated 5-12-2017 passed by the District Forum did not suffer from any illegality as the District Forum did not have any power to review its own order as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kasinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541.    It is brought out from the record that the ex-parte order dated 8.5.2017 was not challenged in the appeal. However it is also true that the District Forum has not given any specific date of deemed service  and prima facie, the order dated 8.5. 2017 seems prematurely passed as observed above.  But this order could only be set aside in an appeal filed by the aggrieved party. When the District Forum and the State Commission have no power to review their own order or to set aside the ex Parte order passed by them, they should be more cautious in passing ex-parte order and particularly when statutory periods are involved.

7.      Based on the above discussion I don't find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 31^st  January 2018 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission and accordingly the Revision Petition No. 1208 of 2018 is dismissed. However it is clarified that this order will not come in the way if the petitioners decide to file appeal against the order dated 8^th May 2017 of the District Forum.