ORAL ORDER

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR

            We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.          There is delay of 610 days in filing of the present appeal.   The impugned   order  of    the   State  Commission was   rendered  on 07-08-2009 whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint at the stage of admission itself.  The appellant thereafter filed a review application vide miscellaneous petition no. 121/2009.  The review   application  was   dismissed   by the State Commission on 14-09-2009.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 30353 of 2009.  That Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 05-04-2011 with liberty to seek remedy under the C.P. Act by filing appropriate application, explaining the delay and as such the present appeal along with application is filed.  After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the pertinent question is: “Whether the appellant was unable to file the appeal before this Commission within the prescribed period of limitation owing to any sufficient cause and as such the appeal should be condoned?”

3.      So far as the appeal is concerned, one cannot be oblivious of the legal position that the appeal is creature of statute.  It is obvious that the limitation period, as prescribed under the CP Act is required to be followed and the delay has to be duly explained as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  The fact that the appellant went to wrong forum by filing the review application is of significance.  For, the State Commission had no power to review its own order. It is well settled that the power of review is unavailable to the Commission and as such, mere error of mentioning certain facts in that order of disposal of the complaint was not susceptible to any review as such.  That apart, when the appellate jurisdiction is available with the National Commission, filing of the Writ Petition itself was an error apparent on face of the record.  It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that on account of some erroneous legal advise, there was wrong forum chosen by the appellant.  However, the concerned lawyer, who seems to have given so called erroneous legal advise, has not filed any affidavit in support of such contention.  Under the circumstances, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.  The delay of 610 days is not a marginal delay and in absence of satisfactory explanation, the application stands dismissed. The appeal is also accordingly disposed of.