Sh. Sanjay Kumar Kthuria, learned counsel for  revisionist and Sh. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party are present.

ORDER

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

This revision petition is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, whereby the order dated 09.11.2016 was recalled and affidavit filed by Sh. Vimal Chandra in evidence has been placed on record and time was given to the opposite party to file rebuttal affidavit.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist has contended that the District Forum was not having the power to review or recall its own order in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr.; IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC).

Para Nos. 36 & 37 of the said judgment are relevant, which reads as under:-

“On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute.  The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.

The Legislature chose to give the National Commission power to review its ex parte orders. Before amendment, against dismissal of any case by the Commission, the consumer had to rush to this Court. The amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section   22-A were done for the convenience of the consumers.  We have carefully ascertained the legislative intention and interpreted the law accordingly.”

Therefore, in view of the said judgment, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside. No order as to costs.