Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RA/24/49

MP HOUSING BOARD THROUGH EXEC ENGINEER/OIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT MEENA MISHRA - Opp.Party(s)

ANSHUMAN TIWARI

30 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                            

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2024

 

M.P.HOUSING CONSTRUCTION &

INFRASTRUCURE BOARD THROUGH

ESTATE OFFICER, BHOPAL.                                                                               …          APPLICANT

 

               Versus

 

SMT. MEENA MISHRA & ANOTHER.                                                                    …         RESPONDENTS

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                   :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY           :      MEMBER                          

 

                                      O R D E R

 

30.05.2024

 

       Shri C. P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.

           

As per A. K. Tiwari :

                 Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

                 The applicant has filed this review application seeking restoration of First Appeal No.1966 of 2023 which was dismissed for non removal of default on 31.01.2024 in compliance of order dated 12.01.2024 as the appellant failed to submit pre-deposit.

2.                Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Hon’ble Commission on 12.01.2024 granted two weeks’ time to the appellant to furnish pre-deposit receipt. In compliance of the order the appellant deposited the amount with the District Commission on 17.01.2024 but could not get the receipt on time as the

-2-

concerned clerk was on leave. Thereafter the matter was dismissed on 31.01.2024.

3.                Be that as it may. Section 50 of the Act of 2019 which is relevant for the purposes for deciding the issue involved in the case is reproduced hereunder:-

50. Review by State Commission in certain cases- The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.

 

4.                Bare perusal of the aforesaid section makes it clear that an order can be reviewed by the State Commission when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 

5.                In view of the aforesaid, we are of a considered opinion that there is no such error, apparent on the face of the record in the order which is being challenged, therefore, it does not call for exercising review jurisdiction conferred upon the State Commission under Section 50 of the Act of 2019.  Even otherwise, this Commission has no power for restoration of case. Accordingly, the review application filed by the applicant, seeking restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non removal of default i.e. not furnishing pre-deposit receipt, not being maintainable, is dismissed.

 

             (A. K. Tiwari)                      (Dr. Srikant Pandey) 

          Acting President                              Member