AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an application filed by the petitioner who is opposite party in main C. D. seeking modification of the order dated 11. 6. 2008. The learned Counsel submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. Os. under Building Regularization Scheme and accordingly he had applied seeking regularization of third floor which includes flat No. 304. The learned Counsel submitted that his application seeking regularization of flat No. 304 is not being processed because of a Writ Petition pending before the Hon''ble High Court.
IT is pertinent to note that C. D. No. 38/2003 was disposed of on 21. 9. 2004 and appeals preferred by complainant in F. A. No. 386/2005 and appeal preferred by opposite party in F. A. No. 1308/2004 have been disposed of by a common order on 29. 3. 2007 and the above orders have become final. The order in W. P. No. 1069/2008 is dated 27. 3. 2008 and the learned Counsel has not chosen to file the same before us pending revision. We have gone through the orders of this Commission in R. P. No. 156/2007 dated 11. 6. 2008 in which the Counsel for revision petitioner has submitted that his application under B. P. S. was pending and to grant six weeks time for regularization. Based on that submission alone, this Commission had granted six weeks time for compliance of its order. We observe that we have no powers to review or modify our own orders.
We also rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon''ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case reported in 2004 (6) ALT 46, wherein it has clearly laid down that- "the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised either by the Fora or the State Commission since there is no specific provision under the Act or Rules framed conferring such power of review. The Division Bench further held that the Consumer Fora or State Commission have no inherent jurisdiction as that of civil Court. "
The Supreme Court in the judgement reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273, laid down as follows: "it is well settled that power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. "
FOR the reasons aforementioned and in view of the above judgments, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Application dismissed.