PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This complaint has been filed by Bombay Users Association against 20 Companies who provide telegraph services. We have heard Shri J.B. Gai, who appeared on behalf o f the petitioner. In nutshell, the complaint has been filed basically on the averments made in para 3 of the complaint, which reads as under: he complainant states after the said judgement of the Honle Supreme Court it has been found that al the service providers attempt to misrepresent and project themselves as telegraph authorities and challenge the maintainability of consumer complaints before the consumer for a. It is respectfully submitted that several State Commissions such as the Delhi State Commission, the Chandigarh State Commission and the Tamil Nadu State Commission have got carried away by the misrepresentation and have held that consumer complaints in respect of telecom services are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the judgment of the Tamil Nadu State Commission in this regard is annexed and marked Exhibit Complaint also refers to judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. W.P. No.7824 of 2005 decided on 8.3.2007. The main contention of the petitioner is that the service providers attempt to misrepresent and project themselves as telegraph authorities and challenge the maintainability of consumer complaints before the Consumer Fora and several State Commissions have got carried away by misrepresentation before it and held that consumer complaints are not maintainable in respect of telecome services. The parties are entitled to put up its defence in the matters pending before Consumer Fora and if it is done so it can not be said that there is any misrepresentation as such on their part or the plea taken itself amounts to unfair trade practice. The Consumer Fora has to deal and decide the plea raised in accordance with law which is subject to appeal. In view of this, we do not find that any case has been made out for entertaining this complaint. The complaint does not disclose any lis between the complainant and the OP, which is required to be dealt by this Commission. The complainant may approach Consumer Fora by filing proper impleadment applications, which, of course, will be decided in accordance with law. The complainant may also approach Consumer Fora having jurisdiction with reference to individual cases of unfair trade practice, if any. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.