These revision petitions seek to challenge the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad in appeals No. 184 of 2010, 185 of 2010 and 192 of 2010.  The appeals were filed before the State Commission after a delay of more than one year.  Though applications for condonation of delay were filed

-3-

but the same did not find favour with the State Commission as in the opinion of the State Commission, the applications did not afford sufficient cause for condoning the delay.  Even the present revision petitions have been filed after  delay of 105 days excluding the period of 90 days, which is prescribed for filing the revision petitions and the period which was taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order.

          We have heard Mr. Ajit S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.  He submits that so far as the compliance of the order of the District Consumer Forum is concerned, which will be deemed to have been affirmed due to dismissal of the appeals, the petitioner is willing to comply with the directions given by the State Commission and to refund the amount charged in excess of the rate of Rs.4 per sq. mt. but the petitioner could not have been asked to pay interest on the amount to be refunded under the orders of the District Consumer Forum.  He submitted that if this order is maintained, it will have far reaching repercussions as the petitioner may be required to pay interest to a large number of persons whom the money has already been refunded.

          We have given our thoughtful consideration to the said submissions but having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner throughout in not pursuing the matter diligently before the State Commission, we are of the view that there is no illegality,

-4-

material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which warrants interference of this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.  However, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, we observe that the order made by the District Consumer Forum would be relatable to the complainants of these cases and will not constitute a precedent.