ANUPAM PANI vs DIRECTOR OF ADMISSION, ORISSA ENGINEERING COLLEGE

HEARD Miss Sujata Dash, the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant and Mr. B. Jena, the learned Counsel for the Orissa Engineering College-respondents. Short question for decision before this Commission is whether the District Forum, Khurda by its order dated 11.3.1998 committed an error by rejecting the prayer of the complainant to review its order dated 3.3.1998.

WE have perused the impugned order and also gone through the judgment cited by Miss Dash reported in AIR 1996 SC 2592 at p. 259, and also of this Commission in C.D. Appeal No. 746/95 disposed off on 14.11.1996. It is not disputed that the complainant had deposited certain amount as caution money for taking admission in the Orissa Engineering College. He took his C.L.C. on 31.5.1995. At that time he made a request for refund of this caution money which according to him, he was entitled to receive back on leaving the College. When the amount was not refunded she approached the District Forum. When the matter was pending before the District Forum, the Counsel for the complainant for reasons known to him filed a petition that the complainant wanted to withdraw the case. The Forum passed an order on 3.3.1998 allowing the withdrawal and thus disposed of the case. Hardly 8 days thereafter on 11.3.1998 the learned Counsel for the complainant again made a prayer that such an application for withdrawal was a misconception. The District Forum rejected the prayer for recalling the order stating that there was no power of review with it.

Having heard the learned Counsel for both sides and on going through the judgment of the District Forum mentioned above, we are of the view that injustice has been done to the case of the complainant by such refusal for review. The learned Counsel for the complainant committed a mistake knowingly or unknowingly by withdrawing the case without a specific instruction from the party in the matter. The Lawyer is always to act at the instruction of the party. In this case, as it is apparent from the order dated 11.3.1998, the matter has not been dealt with a merit but it has been disposed off stating that the District Forum has got no power of review. There is no doubt with regard to the settled position that each and every Court or Tribunal etc. have inherent power to pass such orders for ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and such a power is inherent with the constitution of the Court or Tribunal etc.

IN the present case the order sought to be reviewed was not with regard to the merit of the case, i.e. whether the complainant was a consumer and had right to approach the District Forums or the Authorities were no legal obligation to refund the caution money. All orders of the Court/Tribunal should not be the subject-matter of review by a fanciful order unless the order to be reviewed satisfies the conditions necessary for review, as mentioned above. A prayer for review may be appropriately rejected, when the Court/Tribunal has applied its mind and has rendered a judgment order on merit touching the subject-matter of the case and no error apparent on the face of the order is found to have been committed there by causing injustice to either of the parties.

ON going through the impugned order, we feel it is appropriate to set aside the order. Needless to point out that the question of maintainability which has been raised before this Commission can also be raised before the Forum, and the matter shall be decided on merit after giving notice and opportunity to both parties to place any material before the Forum. No costs. The case should be disposed off within 2 months after the parties have appeared before the Forum. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Ordered accordingly.