KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVIEW APPLICATION No.05/2022

ORDER DATED: 29.04.2022

(Against the Order in I.A.No.164/2021 in Appeal No.61/2021 dated 24.03.2022)

PRESENT:

REVIEW PETITIONER:

(by Adv. G.K. Sudheer)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          This Review Application supported by an elaborate affidavit of the counsel appearing for the review applicant seeks review of an order dated 24.03.2022 in I.A.No.164/2021 in Appeal No.61/2021 passed by us.  As per the said order, we have vacated an interim order of stay granted by us on 16.03.2022 in Appeal No.61/2021, finding that the said order was passed on the mistaken impression that the appeal had been admitted.  It was later on noticed that a petition for condonation of a delay of 577 days in filing the appeal was pending as I.A.No.164/2021 and that the appeal had not even been admitted.  In the order, it has also been found that the counsel who appeared for the appellant/petitioner had not brought to the notice of this Commission that the delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned and that the appeal itself had not been admitted.  The order was passed by us after suo moto advancing the case, immediately on noticing the fact that the counsel had misled this Commission into the passing the order by not pointing out that the delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned.  Therefore, we have also taken serious notice of the unacceptable conduct of the counsel.  It is aggrieved by the said order that this review application is filed.  As already noticed above, the affidavit in support of this petition has been filed by the Advocate himself, though the petition is filed on behalf of the appellant.

2.       Throughout the affidavit, what is attempted to be made out by the deponent is blameworthy conduct on the part of this Commission.  Through elaborate statements made, the attempt is to create an impression that this Commission had committed some objectionable act.  It has been attempted to blame the Court Officer of this Commission for having put in place an alternative arrangement for the convenience of the lawyers practicing before us to be informed of the postings/proceedings of each case posted day after day.  It is also stated that calling for the Lower Court Records before condonation of delay was not a normal procedure and that, the proceedings by which lower court records were called for had prompted the deponent to believe that the delay in the case had been condoned and that the appeal had been admitted.

          3.       We remind ourselves that the deponent is a lawyer with considerable standing in the profession.  He was aware that this appeal was filed with an inordinate delay as evident from the fact that the same was accompanied by a petition for condonation thereof.  He also cannot feign ignorance of the fact that unless the delay condonation petition was allowed and the delay condoned, the appeal would not be admitted.  In the present case, neither was the delay condoned nor was the appeal admitted.  However, the case was got advanced on an application moved by him.  Thereafter, an order was obtained without disclosing the fact that the delay condonation petition was still pending and that the appeal had not been admitted.  Since the erroneous order had to be corrected, the case was advanced suo moto and the order sought to be reviewed was passed.  The said procedure is one that is adopted by any court/tribunal that comes to know that a wrong order passed by it required to be set aside.  We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason warranting a review of the said order, as sought for in this petition.  The observations made by us against the counsel are fully justified in the circumstances of the case and does not require to be reviewed.

          4.       Before parting with this petition, we regret to observe that absolutely no feeling of remorse or regret is discernible from the statements sworn to by the deponent/counsel in his affidavit filed in support of this petition.  His attempt has only been to justify his conduct and to shift the blame on to this Commission.  Such an attitude cannot be countenanced and requires only to be condemned.  We can only lament and express our concern at the falling standards in ethics and etiquette in the legal profession.

          In the light of the above discussion, we find no grounds to admit this review petition or to grant the prayer for review made by the petitioner.  The review petition is therefore dismissed.  No costs.

SL