The Complainant has filed this Revision Petition, questioning the legality of order dated 17.9.2014, whereby a notice has been issued to him on the application filed by the Respondent/Original Opposite Party seeking review of order passed by the State Commission on 17.9.2014 in F.A. No.442/2014.

          The main grievance of the Petitioner is that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. – (2011)9 SCC 541, the State Commission does not enjoy any power to review its own order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          In my view, the Revision Petition is pre-mature, in as much as the State Commission is yet to take a final decision whether or not the application, in which notice has been issued, is maintainable.  The Petitioner may respond to the said notice and place the precedents before the State Commission on which he proposes to rely in support of his stand.

          I am not inclined to entertain the Revision Petition and the same stands dismissed accordingly.  Needless to add that it will be open to the Petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy in case he is aggrieved with the final order, which may be passed by the State Commission.  Order dasti.