Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13749 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1215 of 2025 Petitioner :- Narain Automobiles Shahnjaf Road Thru. Its Managing Partner And Another Respondent :- Mujtaba Ali Khan And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aishvarya Mathur Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Ms. Aishvarya Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners had filed an Appeal No.1710 of 2018 before the State Consumer Forum challenging the order of the District Forum passed against the petitioners. On the date fixed, i.e., 13th September, 2022, the matter of the petitioner was listed before the State Forum. However, the counsel was on sanctioned leave as is evident from the document contained in page No.82. Despite the counsel being on sanctioned leave, the State Commission proceeded to dismiss the appeal in the absence of the parties vide order dated 13.09.2022. An application was filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 13.09.2022 and for disposal of the matter on merits. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2024 holding that the State Commission does not have the power of review. Challenging the order dated 07.02.2024, a revision was preferred before the National Consumer Forum. The National Consumer Forum instead of deciding the issue as was raised with regard to non-recall of an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, proceeded to hear the matter on merits and affirmed the order passed by the District Forum and held that the award passed by the District Forum does suffer from any illegality and that the petitioner was delaying the matter, as such, the revision was dismissed. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Commission had erred in rejecting the application seeking recall of an order dismissing the appeal in default by holding that there is no power of review vested in the State Commission. She argues that the said order was wrong as although there is no power of substantive review vested in the State Commission, however, the power of procedural review is implicit and is available to all the judicial authorities and to that extent, the State Commission was wrong in rejecting the said application. 5. She relies upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another (2005) 13 SCC 777. 6. She further argues that in any case, the National Commission had to decide the issue within the jurisdiction vested in the National Commission as prescribed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein the power of revision has been conferred. However, the said powers are confined to adjudication on merits of the orders and subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 58(1)(a). She thus, argues that the order impugned is bad in law. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the fact that no one had represented the respondent before the National Commission, I do not see any reason to serve respondents at this stage, as the limited issue of jurisdiction of the National Commission and State Commission is to be seen on the basis of statutory provisions. 8. The National Commission by impugned order instead of deciding on the merits of the order passed by the State Commission, proceeded to record finding affirming the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, which was subject matter of an appeal. The said act of the National Commission, is prima facie not traceable to any powers conferred upon the National Commission. As the impugned order is contrary to the mandate of powers conferred by virtue of Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, the said order cannot be sustained. 9. In view of the fact that the matter has already got delayed and the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution despite there being a sanctioned leave of the counsel, I deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the National Consumer Forum, the order dated 07.02.2024 passed the State Commission, rejecting the application for recall as well as the order dated 13.09.2022, whereby the appeal was dismissed in default. 10. The matter shall be heard afresh on merits by the State Consumer Forum and shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent also. 11. The petition stands allowed in terms of above. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench