MUKUL MAHANTA vs Telecom District Manager

BY This common order, we propose to dispose the two petiions filed in C.P.No. 12 of 1991 and C.P.No. 65 of 1992. The original Complaint petition were disposed of by order dated 13.3.93. The petitions were against the Telephone Department for not giving new Telephone connections by the department. During the pendency of the petitions telephone connections were given. In petitions, the petitioners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day from 31.1.91 as the telephone connections were not given. However, on the connections were given the only question that was decided regarding compensation by the said order. It was directed that the complainants shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum deposited.

THE present petition has been file for review of the above orders regarding compensation and has prayed that the above orders may be reviewed and a reasonable compensation may be awarded. Heard Mr. Charu Mahanta, for the petitioners and Mr. B. Kalita, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

Mr. Mahanta replying on a decision of the National Commission has urged that the petitioners are entitled to get much higher damage. The judgment of the National Commission has been annexed as Annexure-A to the review petition and from the said judgment we find that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded as compensation. 5.A decision of the State Commission, Gujarat has also been annexed where compensation of Rs. 12,000/- was awarded. 6.The petitioners have file the present petitions for higher compensation. The question that arises is whether as the petitions have been decided on merit, whether a Review petition is maintainable. 7.Mr. Kalita has urged that there is no power of review of any order passed by the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. From the Act we find that there is no power of review. In absence of any power of review the question is whether such power can be exercised. 8. The Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershr v. Pradvumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 held as follows: "It is well settled power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision under the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. The question whether the Government''s order is correct or valid in law, does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set aside or declared filed by a Competent Authority".

Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is clear that unless any Act provides power for review or such a power could be inferred by implication the authoirty has no power to review its order. This view was also taken by the State Commission of Rajasthan in Uttam Electric v. Jeypore Golden Transport Company I (1993) CPJ 433 and also by the State Commission, Delhi in Usha Gupta v. The General Manager, II (1991) CPJ 87 and we are in respectful argeement the above view expressed. 10. In the case in hand, entire matter was decided on merit including the amount of compensation. There is no power of review of the said order under the Act. We have gone through the Act and it is difficult to hold that by implication we can come to a decision that the Commission has got the power to review its own order. We make it clear that the above view will not be attracted in case any exparte order is passed by the Commission, inasmuch as, in our opinion, the Commission does not become functus offi-cio in that case, as the case is not decided on merit. 11. Mr. Mahanta has urged that the High Court while exercising power in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, exercises the power of review. But that analogy cannot be applicable in case of any dispute before this Commission, as the writ jurisdiction is an extra ordinary jurisdiction. That apart, even in case of Writ Petition, power of review can be exercised only for limited purpose as laid down by various decisions of the Apex Court and other Courts and by exercising power of review the matter cannot be re-heard on merit. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Mahanta has no force. In the result both the review petitions are dis-missed. Review petition dismissed.