IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34334 of 2010(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,KOTTAYAM POSTAL DIVISION KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.K.ABRAHAM, KAITHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O.,KOTTAYAM-686521 2. T.K.MANI,MULANJIYIL, PUTHUPALLAY P.O.,KOTTAYAM-686521 3. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES, REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 696125, REP.BY REGISTRAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.34334 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The first respondent had joined the monthly income scheme account of the petitioner and deposited an amount of Rs.1,98,000/-. On the ground that the deposit was made by an institution which was ineligible to make such deposit in terms of the rules of the Scheme, after deducting the amounts already paid towards the interest, the balance was paid to the 1st respondent. Against this action of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No.383/2003 on the file of the C.D.R.F, Kottayam. 2. Although initially the complaint was dismissed, in the appeal the matter was remanded. On reconsideration, the C.D.R.F allowed the complaint and directed payment of the amounts to the depositors in terms of the rules of the scheme. Against that order of the C.D.R.F, petitioner filed Appeal No.608/2005 before the State Commission. By Ext.P1 order rendered on 7.1.2010, the appeal was dismissed. 3. Although the Consumer Protection Act did not W.P (C) No.34334 of 2010 2 provide for any review, petitioner filed an application which was numbered as R.P. No.25 of 2010. That again was dismissed by Ext.P3 order dated 7.8.2010. 4. Meanwhile an execution application was filed by the complainant as E.P. No.43/2010 in which Ext.P5 notice of appearance was issued. Execution is being proceeded with and it is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 order and the proceedings in E.P. No.43/2010. 5. As far as the validity of Ext.P3 order passed in R.P. No.25/2010 is concerned, there is no case for the petitioner that the Consumer Protection Act confer power of review on the State Commission. If that be so, the dismissal of R. P. No.25 of 2010 for want of review power, cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition to quash Ext.P3 has to be rejected and I do so. 6. Once Ext.P3 order is upheld, necessary consequence is that the order of C.D.R.F which is confirmed in Ext.P1 order in appeal has attained finality as W.P (C) No.34334 of 2010 3 at present. If that be so, further proceedings in E.P. No.43/2010 also cannot be prevented. 7. Needless to say that this judgment will not stand in the way of petitioner seeking further remedy, if any, under Section 19 of the Act, if it is legally permissible. Writ fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge