05.08.2011

R.V.W. No. 6 of 2011

with

C.A.N.. No. 1077 of 2011

With

C.O. No. 2435 of 2008

Mr. Abhijit Gangopadhyay

.........for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anindya Lahiri

Mr. Dwaipayan Sengupta

.......... For the Opposite Parties

The review application being No. 6 of 2011 is taken up for hearing an order. Heard learned lawyer for the both side. It appears that this Court had dismissed the revision application being No. C.O. 2435 of 2008. In view of the provision of Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1896. Thereafter applicant filed a CAN application being No. 9552 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other CAN application being No. 9513 of 2010 by setting aside the order dated 03.09.2010 passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal. The order of Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal runs as follows : - "After conclusion of the hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would withdraw the above cited two applications - one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other for recalling of the order." The said prayer was allowed by the Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal. Thereafter the instant revisional application referred before me. In this connection learned Lawyer referred to a decision of Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta being No. C.O. 2320 of 2009 where it was observed by Justice Datta that "the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgement and order dated 16.06.2009 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. In terms of the provisions contained in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the petitioner have the efficacious alternative remedy before the National Commission in respect of any grievances arising out of an order passed by the State Commission. In view of such efficacious alternative remedy I am not inclined to entertain this application."

From the order of Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta it is crystal clear that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Moreover, on perusal of my order passed on 03.09.2010 and the order of Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal passed on 14.01.2011 it is crystal clear that that this order passed by me was based on merit and so the instant review application has no legs to stand upon. In view of aforesaid discussion the review application being No. 6 of 2011 is dismissed on contest but without cost in the circumstances. Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.

(Raghunath Bhattacharya, J.)