P. Tulasidas vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd

A. P. Sahi, President Member

The applicant/ complainant Mr. P. Tulasidas was aggrieved by the action of his family members with whom he had a contest with regard to property where he was residing. There was an electricity connection, which was contested in this dispute, which was pending before the Civil Court, which dispute was being contested by him against his own father and his brother. This dispute according to the orders, which are on record, did not yield any result and the complainant was unsuccessful even up to the Apex Court.

The electricity meter was disconnected and consequently, the complainant filed CC/98/2012 before the District Forum, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh seeking restoration of electricity connection and Rs.18,00,000/- as compensation from Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Andhra Pradesh. Since the parties remained absent an ex parte order was passed by the District Forum. The complaint was partly allowed directing the restoration of the power supply to the complainant and further payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-.

The appeal was filed by the complainant and also by his brother and his brother’s wife, challenging the very same order. The complainant prayed for the payment of Rs.18,00,000/- compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation charges. Whereas his brother and his brother’s wife after seeking leave preferred an appeal contending that the matter had been contested up to the Apex Court between them, where the order of the High Court in their favour had become final. Their contention was that since he was not entitled to any share in the property, the District Forum was not justified in issuing directions for restoration of the supply of the electricity. The appeal filed by the bother of the complainant and the brother’s wife was allowed and the order was set aside remanding the matter back to the District Forum to consider those aspects and then pass appropriate orders. FA/521/2013 was allowed and the appeal filed by the complainant FA/632/2012 was also disposed of on the same terms.

On 14.05.2014, the complaint proceeded with the matter, when the complainant on 29.05.2014 filed an interim application for impleading 112 respondents to the complaint as respondent nos. 6 to 116. While requesting the impleadment, he describes some of the respondents by pre-fixing the Telugu word  Lanchala before their names, which means corrupt. These names included the names of several dignitaries holding higher offices in the country including the Chief Minister of the State, the Prime Minister of the country and at least half a dozen judges of the Apex Court, who have been named therein. This application was dealt with in detail by the District Forum and on 17.09.201 and the application was rejected with Rs.10,000/- costs on the complaint. The order is extracted herein under:

“The petitioner on 29-05-14 filed IA.S.R. 819 of 2014 U/s.151 C.P.C. to implead the respondents 6 to 116 as opposite parties to CC 98 of 2012.

The registry on 03-06-14 returned the petition with the following defects:

"1. The respondents 1 to 3 were already shown in the complaint as OPs 1 to 3.

Full address particulars and who are representing opposite parties 4 and 5 have not been given.

Full address particulars of the respondents 6 to 116 have not been furnished.

The petitioner/complainant seeking to implead respondents 6 to 116 as opposite parties in the main complaint on personal capacity without any valid reasons.

There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the respondents 6 to 116 and the allegations mentioned in this petition i.e., bribe and conspiracy are not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act".

This Forum on 17-07-14 ordered the following:

"Complainant present. Heard the complainant. The complainant represented to clarify regarding mode of notice to be service on respondents 6 to 116.

The petitioner/complainant herein filed this petition after remand as APSCDRC ordered impleadment of one Pothuri Hari Prasad and his wife Vijaya Lakshmi as parties to the complaint.

At this stage this Forum cannot go into the merits or otherwise of this application. The petitioner/complainant is directed to send notices by RP under acknowledgment due along with copy of petition to the respondents 6 to 116 and file receipts into this Forum on or before 17-09-14 failing which the petition stands rejected."

Respondents 6 to 116 called during call work as the petitioner stated that he sent notices and is postal receipts, acknowledgments and returned postal covers. Respondents 77 and 114 alone present and stated that they are not at all concerned with the allegations made by the petitioner and it amounted to abuse of process of judicial authority. R77 stated that he is representing some of the opposite parties in C.C.20/07 on the file of this Forum while R114 represented that he filed vakalat for Ops 4 &5 in the present complaint.

The petitioner/complainant filed memo about 4.15 p.m., stating that the notices addressed to the respondents 6 to 8, 13, 17, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36 to 40, 44 to 59, 62 to 69, 79 to 81, 83, 88, 89, 90, 97, 98, 101, 104 to 107 and 112 returned unserved; and served acknowledgements of the respondents 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19 to 21, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 35, 41, 43 to 53, 60, 70, 71, 73 75 to 78, 86, 91, 92, 93, 95. 96, 99, 100, 101, 109 to 111 and 113 to 115.

Among them notice of R-39 returned as expired; the notices addressed to R-6. 26, 28, 40, 79, 83, 88, 106 and 112 returned as refused.

The petitioner has not furnished age and father's/husband's name of the respondents 17 to 26, 30, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 71 to 116. notices to the respondents 6 to 116 mentioning from address as his instead of the petitioner sent District Consumer Forum, Guntur. When questioned, the petitioner countered that he furnished so as per court order dated 17-07-14. No such order was passed by this Forum on 17-07-14. It can not convey such meaning. As the petitioner/complainant furnished from address as his, we are of the opinion that service is improper. Hence none of the respondents can  be set exparte even though served.

The petitioner prefixed 'Lanchala' before the names of the 89 to 100. This Forum when questioned the petitioner stated that the respondents 89 to 100 demanded bribe to do lawful thing in his favor.

The petitioner also described the respondents 78 to 81 as Viyyankas of Pothuri Hari Prasad instead of furnishing their father's name; the respondents 82 to 85 as sons-in-law of Pothuri Hari Prasad instead of furnishing their father's name; respondents 101 to 104 as daughters of Pothuri Hari Prasad instead of furnishing their husband's name, 105 to 108 as Viyyapurallu of Pothuri Hari Prasad even without mentioning their names. The petitioner failed to comply the 3rd objection raised by the Forum on 03-06-14.

The respondents 11 and 12 i.e., the Chairman and the Secretary of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh submitted their representation vides their letter dated 25-08-14 and their contention is hereunder:

"With reference to the above CC this is to inform that either the Chairman or the Secretary of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh are no way concerned with the issues raised by the complainant in the above CC. The allegations made against the respondents from 9 to 116 are that the complainant was put to loss by these respondents by bribing officials. As the Chairman and the Secretary of the Bar Council are shown as respondents Nos. 11 & 12 and that when the said respondents are not concerned with the allegations raised in the complaint, the question of bribing any officials does not arise. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the complaint against the respondents Nos.11 & 12".

The petitioner/complainant filed this complaint originally against the authorities of APSPDCL, seeking restoration of power supply to his service connection No.10868 and compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for illegal disconnection.

The attitude of the petitioner in describing respondents 89 to 100 by prefixing 'Lanchala' before their name/surname is highly deplorable and amounted to abusing process of judicial authority.

The petitioner did not rectify the 3rd objection properly raised by this Forum on 03-06-14. The petitioner sending notices mentioning from address as his instead of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur in our considered opinion is quite improper. Hence the petition is liable to be rejected in our considered view.

Sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act says that where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order. In our considered opinion the complaint includes interlocutory application also filed in it. It is well settled in law that vexatious litigation has to be curbed.

In the result the petition is rejected with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund on or before 29-09-14.”

The complainant had also filed a revision before the State Commission dated 14.05.2014, whereby the State Commission had directed the impleadment of the brother of the complainant and his wife. The revision was dismissed on 23.09.2014.

There is yet another fact which needs mention and that is the revision petition which was filed against the order dated 17.09.2014 being RP/79/2014. Since the complainant had attempted to malign the image of other judicial officers also by seeking impleadment. A petition was received from the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama indicating his response to the vexatious and frivolous litigation being pursued by the complainant. This revision petition filed by the complainant arrays Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh at serial no. 72, the President of the YSR party, the current Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh at serial no. 73, the Prime Minister at serial no. 74 and then at least 20 advocates including the Chairman, the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh High Court, and then the Secretary and the Treasurer of the Bar Council of India. This is followed by the other members of the Bar Association of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and also many more of the like. The revision petition was dismissed with Rs.1,00,000/- cost on the complainant and with compensation/ costs of Rs.20,000/- to four of the respondents to the said revision petition. The order passed by the State Commission on 10.07.2017 is extracted herein under:

“1) Petitioner called absent despite calling the matter both in the forenoon and in the afternoon today and on previous occasions as well. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 12, 24 and 116 are present. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 9,10, 14, 29, 33, 43, and 44 are absent.

2) This revision petition filed by the complainant arises out of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Guntur in un-numbered IASR 819/2014 in CC No. 98/2012 . By the said order the Forum has rejected his applicatiorf to implead as many as 113 persons who are unconnected with his complaint as opposite parties to the complaint.

3) The petitioner filed the complaint before the Forum stating that he is residing in the ground floor of House bearing D.No. 26-5 (Old No. 26-8), High school Road, Chilakalurpet, Guntur District constructed by his ancestors. His brother's family is residing in the first floor. There is a dispute between the petitioner and his brother Hari Prasad relating to 1 / 3rd  part of the said house property that fell to his father's share and civil cases are pending between them. The petitioner has Electrical Service connection bearing No.10868 for the last 20 years and he has been paying bills regularly. The allegation of the complainant is that on 22.9.2011, the 3rd opposite party i.e., Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (SPDCL), Chilakaluripet issued notice demanding him to produce the title deed of the house property as his brother was also claiming said property. The service connection was, however, disconnected on 9.6.2012 though he sent a reply letter dt.4.10.2011 informing that the property is under Civil dispute. Aggrieved by the action of the said Power Company in disconnecting the power supply the petitioner filed the complaint in question before the Forum seeking a direction to restore power supply and to award Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation.

4) Originally the petitioner impleaded only three opposite parties i.e., 1)SPDCL rep. by Divisional Engineer, Guntur, 2) SPDCL rep. by Asst. Divisional Engineer, Chilakaluripet and 3) SPDCL rep. by Asst. Engineer, Chilkaluri pet.

5) Initially the Forum allowed the complaint on 4.7-2012 and directed the said opposite parties to restore power supply and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal FA N. 32/2012 before this Commission and his brother and sister-in-law also preferred a separate appeal as third parties vide FA.No.520/2013. In the appeals the order of the Forum was set-aside on 7.2.2014 and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after impleading his brother and sister-in-law as parties. Accordingly his brother and sister-in-law were added as opposite parties 4 and 5.

6) While proceedings in the complaint were in progress, the petitioner filed the instant application on 29.5.2014 to implead the proposed parties as opposite parties 6 to 116. The allegation against the proposed parties was that some of them gave bribe to opposite parties 1 to 8 and caused damage to him., and that there was a conspiracy by some of them to kill him.

7) It is to be noted at this stage that the petitioner did not mention the full address particulars of the proposed parties and he did not disclose any privity of contract with them so as to legitimately seek their impleadment. The allegation of bribery and conspiracy would not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Apart from the same, he prefixed the names of some of the respondents with the word "LANCHALA" in Telugu (Corrupt).

8) In the light of the objection taken by the Office in this regard, the matter was placed before the Forum at the request of the petitioner. The Forum after hearing the petitioner on 17.7.2014 directed him to send notices to the respondents by RPAD and file receipts on or before 17.9.2014. The petitioner filed the receipts but notices were returned un-served on some of the ۱ respondents due to insufficient addresses, while some of them were served. The Forum, after noticing the said position with regard to non-service of notice mostly due to insufficient addresses and the objectionable way of describing the opposite parties as "LANCHALA" (Corrupt), rejected the application as frivolous and vexatious by awarding costs of Rs. 10,000/-. It is against the said order the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

9) At the outset, we may observe that the petitioner on his own has changed the entire complexion of the cause title in the revision petition. We notice that the petitioner has not impleaded his brother Hari Prasad and sister- in-law Vijaya Lakshmi in this petition though they were impleaded in the complaint pursuant to the orders of this Commission.

10) Be that as it may, this Commission without admitting the revision petition directed notice to the respondents and the petitioner was directed to take out personal notices. The notices were served only on 29 respondents. As many as 77 respondents were not served, while some of them died. Two respondents were shown twice whereas there is no name mentioned against Sl No.41 in the cause-title. The petitioner was therefore directed to clarify the position when he was personally present on 5.12.2015. Again when the matter was adjourned to 19.4.2016 even after four postings, proof of service on the respondents was not filed nor the petitioner deleted the names of the deceased as undertaken by him. The petitioner has not filed proof of service even after the matter has undergone several adjournments since then. Instead he went on addressing letter after letter seeking adjournments, the details of which are mentioned hereinafter.

11) Neither notices were served on some of the respondents nor has the petitioner made any efforts to serve notices on them. Hence this revision petition is dismissed for default against the respondents Nos. R 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 45, 46 to 59, 61 to 72, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88 to 91, 93 to 96, 98, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 112.

12) As already noticed six respondents died, hence the revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable against the respondent Nos. 38, 39, 79, 102, 105 and 106.

13) The respondent Nos. 30 and 31 were shown twice at Sl. No. 82 and 85 and Sl.No.41 is missing in the list. Therefore, apart from non-service of notice, revision petition is dismissed against the said respondents as misconceived.

14) Out of the remaining respondents who have been served, respondent Nos. 12, 22, 24 and 116 have filed counter affidavits.

15) The petitioner is absent as usual. Perused memorandum of grounds of revision petition. Heard Sri M. Hari Babu, counsel for respondent No. 12, Sri V. Gourishankara Rao, counsel for respondent Nos. 24 and 116.

16) We have given thoughtful consideration to ascertain as to the necessity or otherwise of impleading the proposed parties to the complaint.

17) The underlying principle in joining parties as respondents to a proceeding arises where any right to relief in respect of or arising out of some act or transaction is alleged to exist against such persons in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. When no cause of action is alleged against any person or persons, such person or persons cannot be impleaded.

18) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs.. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (1992 SCC (2) 524) held that the question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of necessity. The Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be passed effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. The addition of parties is generally not a question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a case.

19) In the case on hand, as already noticed, all that the petitioner has alleged in the complaint is that the electrical connection to his house was illegally disconnected by the originally impleaded respondents. Therefore, he has sought for restoration of power supply and also compensation against them. In as much as his brother Hari Prasad and his sister-in-law

Vijayalakshmi are said to be claiming interest in the same house property they were also impleaded as respondents. Except these parties, we do not find any connection whatsoever or any nexus of other respondents to the complaint. Some of the respondents are in high offices and some them are advocates. We are surprised to notice that the petitioner has proposed the names of Hon'ble Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi, Hon'ble Chief Minister for the State of Andhra Pradesh Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu and the President of YSR Congress Party also as respondents. We fail to understand as to how these dignitaries are connected with the complaint. We also find that the Chairman, A.P State Bar Council and its Secretary and Treasurer are also shown as respondents. As many as twenty advocates are also sought to be impleaded for the sin of having advised or appeared against him in some cases in the past. Apart from them the petitioner has proposed the employees of Electricity Department and employees of some timber depots, carpenters, Forest officials, School Teachers, Retired Officers and Civil Judges. We are at a loss even to presume that all these persons either connived with the officials of the Electricity Department to disconnect the power supply to his house or acted against the interests of the petitioner. Our wisdom has failed us to think that the Prime Minister of this country or the Chief Minister of the State gave bribes in order to harm this God forsaken person. We also fail to understand as to why the proposed respondents were planning to kill him. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that the proposed parties are neither necessary proper to the complaint.

20) It is not the case of the petitioner that he availed the services of HYD the proposed parties by paying consideration to them and they failed in their duty towards him. We are fully convinced that the petitioner has filed this petition without any sense of proportion or responsibility. His memos sent to this Commission claiming crores of rupees demonstrates his faculties.

The letters are:

S. NO.

Memo Date

Purpose

1.

03.11.2015

Adjournment sought for 40 days.

2.

01.12.2015

To register criminal cases against all the Respondents.

3.

03.03.2016

To direct the Respondents to file counters.

Adjournment sought for 3 months.

4.

16.04.2016

Adjournment sought for 3 months.

5.

21.04.2016

To direct the Respondents to file counters.

6.

03.06.2016

Adjournment sought for 2 months and direct the Respondents to file counters.

7.

05.08.2016

Adjournment sought for 3 months

8.

21.10.2016

Adjournment sought for 3 months and to direct the Respondents to file counters and to impose fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for not filing counters. To mark the complaint in CFR No. 2853/2016 filed before the Principal Dist. Judge, Guntur as an Exhibit.

9.

28.10.2016

Adjournment sought for 3 months

10.

11.11.2016

Adjournment sought for 2 months for conversion of present RP into a suit for Rs. 118 crores against all the Respondents.

11.

17.01.2017

Adjournment sought for 3 months to register Criminal cases against all the Respondents and to transfer the RP to Telangana State Commission.

12.

18.01.2017

To register Criminal Cases against Respondents.

12.

27.02.2017

Adjournment sought for 3 months to take steps for transfer of RP to Telangana State Commission.

13.

07.04.2017

Adjournment sought for 2 months.

14.

25.04.2017

To give directions to the Respondents to file counters who have not filed failing which to impose fine of Rs. 50,000/- each. Letter addressed to NCDRC for transfer of RP to Telangana State Commission.

15.

20.05.2017

To impose fine of Rs. 1 lakh on each Respondent for not filing counters and to impose fine of Rs. 3 crores fine against Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu (R72) and Sri Narendra Modi (R74). Taking steps to get the Ri transferred to NCDRC or else this Commission may transfer the same to NCDRC and sought adjournment for 3 months.

16.

14.06.2017

Copy of Memo dt. 20.5.2017 to impose fine of Rs. 1 lakh on each Respondent for not filing counters and to impose fine of Rs. 3 crores fine against Sri Nara Chandra Babu Naidu (R72) and Sri Narendra Modi (R74). Taking steps to get the RP transferred to NCDRC or else this Commission may transfer the same to NCDRC and sought adjournment for 3 months.

21) From his conduct as evident from the above letters, we convinced that the intention of the petitioner is mala fide and to enrich himself through this litigation or gain cheap popularity as he is said to be running a political party called "Paramathma political party".

22) For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation to dismiss this revision petition and confirm the order of the Forum.

23) The petitioner has wasted the time of this Commission by filing this frivolous and vexatious petition. We therefore award costs of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to each of the respondent Nos. 12, 22, 24, and 116. Apart from that the petitioner shall also pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the A.P State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner shall pay costs within eight weeks. In the event of the petitioner not paying costs the said respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate action against him.”

It appears that a criminal complaint was also filed by the complainant, again arraying the dignitaries referred to hereinabove and also adding several Judges and member of the Registry of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Principal Session Judge Guntur passed order on 18.11.2016, whereafter a criminal revision petition  no. 2239/2017 was filed before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the criminal revision petition was rejected as not maintainable, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to approach the appropriate forum.

In between the complainant filed this transfer application for transferring the original complaint on the ground that the complainant did not expect justice at the hands of the District Forum and therefore the complaint should be transferred.

It is in this background that the present transfer application was registered and had remained under removal of defects since its inception. Whereafter, orders were passed by the Bench on 06.05.2019, 13.08.2019 and on 20.01.2020 giving time to the applicant to remove the defects. It seems that the pandemic intervened thereafter and the case was adjourned when on 30.01.2023, the complaint was dismissed but at the same time liberty was given to recall and get the transfer application restored.

MA/97/2023 was moved for restoration by the complainant in person stating therein that he had sent an email on 25.01.2023 to the Section Officer seeking information about the status of this transfer application and since no response had been received, he was under the belief that the transfer application is still at the stage of dispatch of notice to the opposite parties and hence he was awaiting orders in this respect.

Needless to mention this transfer application also repeats the same feat of impleading respondents including dignitaries, advocates and judges as is evident from the list particularly the names appearing at serial no. 77, 78, 79 and 80 onwards including the names of some High Court Judges at serial no. 122, 123 and 12. The presiding officers of the State Commission, who has passed the orders against the complainant in the revision petition referred to above have also been made party in person.

The aforesaid exercise undertaken by the complainant cannot be encouraged in any way. Nontheless, when the aforesaid MA/97/2023 was moved the same was taken up on 04.01.2024 by this Bench and the following order was passed as no one appeared to press the said application:

“1. In this transfer application the following order was passed on 30.01.2023:

“When the Case was taken up, nobody appears for the Applicant.  Even on the earlier occasions also, nobody had appeared on behalf of the Applicant.  It appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing the Application.  The Application is dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty given to the Applicant to file an Application for recall of this Order/restoration of the Transfer Application, in the event, the Applicant is interested in pursuing the Application.”

Notices were issued on 29.03.2023 on the miscellaneous application.

Today again no one has appeared either to press the miscellaneous application or to address the court on this transfer application.

It is also evident from a perusal of the transfer application that the following statements were made seeking transfer:-

“7. Aggrieved by the above orders of the forum below, I preferred a revision bearing RP No. 79/14 before the Hon’ble AP State Commission by orders dated 10.07.2017, which was received by me on 4.8.2017 by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- to be payable by me to the Respondents No. 12,22,24 and 116 therein apart from imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by me to the A.P. State Legal Services  Authority. I reserve my right to file an appeal against the said orders before this Hon’ble Commission at appropriate time by way of separate proceedings apart from pursuing my other remedies i.e., PIL before the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad.

I state that the consumer complaint bearing CC No. 98 of 2012 is still pending before the forum below. I state that the Hon’ble  Bench is prejudiced against me and I do not hope any favourable orders from the Hon’ble Forum  below. The case stands posted to 15.09.2017.”

The matter was continuing in the year 2017. The orders which were passed by the State Commission on 10.07.2017 seem to have not been challenged on merits and this transfer application has been moved making allegations in respect thereof to the effect that the applicant reserves his right to file an appeal before the appropriate forum or pursue the same through separate proceedings  and through other remedies.

It is therefore clear that more than 6 years have passed by now, and there is nothing to indicate about any remedy being pursued against the order passed on 10.07.2017 by the State Commission. It is quite possible that all the presiding officers in 2017 might have demitted office by now. No prejudice as alleged seems to be continuing as on date.

It may further be pointed out that an order passed under these proceedings are protected under Section 28 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as follows:

“28. Protection of action taken in good faith.—No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the members of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission or any officer or person acting under the direction of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission for executing any order made by it or in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done by such member, officer or person under this Act or under any rule or order made thereunder.”

Thus the impugned order dated 10.07.2017 having not been challenged there is no occasion to infer any fact at this stage so as to enable the complainant to urge a surviving ground seeking transfer of the case. The application is accordingly rejected for reasons above and also for want of prosecution.”

This is how the present restoration application being MA/234/2024 has been filed again praying for restoration and the application is nothing else but a repeat of the earlier restoration application with change of dates. The explanation given in the application is not acceptable as it appears that the complainant is seeking more of publicity than of relief by getting notices issued to unconnected persons. No intimation has been given as to what happened before the District Forum after the case was restored, nor any other information is being tendered about the status of the original complaint.

Today also the complainant has not appeared nor has any representation been made on his behalf. The moving of repetitive restoration applications without any assistance to the Bench and without there being any cause to issue notice to more than 100 opposite parties, I do not find the application for restoration to be moved bonafidely and appears to be more for publicity then for any genuine cause.

Keeping in view the past record of the complainant no purpose would be served by imposing any cost and as a matter of fact the very pendency of this transfer application since 2017 has consumed immeasurable time of the Commission for no fruitful purpose as such it is consigned to record.