Judgment:
A.P. Chowdhri, President:
1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Dr. K.L. Madhok, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, paid a sum of Rs. 1,219/- to M/s Sterling Computers Ltd., New Delhi, who were official publisher of Delhi Telephone Directory in connection with the publication of an advertisement in the yellow pages part xxxxxxx on 18.9.1992. On 19.3.1993 the complainant received intimation from M/s. Sterling Computers Limited that in consequence of the order of the Supreme Court, they were no longer official publishers of the telephone directory and the yellow pages thereof for the city of Delhi. It was further intimated that in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court the money collected by them would be transferred to MTNL, alongwith the advertising details to be passed on the new official publisher. The complainant was requested to get in touch with MTNL in future. The complainant filed a complaint before District Forum-I against Manager, Telephone Nigam Limited, New Delhi on 5.7.1993 claiming refund of rupees 1,219/- with 18% interest and Rs. 1,000/- on account of costs. On 7.10.1993, the complainant received a letter from M.N. Publications Ltd. with reference to complainant's letter addressed to MTNL informing him that they had been appointed publishers for the directory as well as yellow pages. The complainant was further informed that MTNL had handed over a list of names of advertisers who had booked orders with the previous publisher namely Sterling Computer Ltd. and that amount collected by them in the process was being handed over to the new publisher. On 3.8.1994 the complainant received a cheque for Rs. 1,219/-. By order dated 7.3.1995 District Forum-I dismissed the complaint with the finding that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and MTNL or M.N. Publications. The complainant preferred an application, dated 12.10.1995 seeking review of the order dated 7.3.1995. The said application was dismissed by the District Forum on 8.2.1996 with the finding that the Forum did not have power of review. The present appeal was filed on 4.4.1996.
2. We have heard appellant in person and Mr. S. Pattjoshi Advocate for the respondent.
3. The first contention of Mr. Pattjoshi is that the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation. The main order is dated 7.3.1995 and the present appeal was filed on 4.4.1996. No explanation for the delay has been offered. Limitation cannot possibly start from the date of rejection of the review application. It is well-known that unless power of review is specifically conferred by the statute the same does not inhere in quasi-judicial authority who do not exercise plenary jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, liable to fail on this short ground.
4. The next contention of Mr. Pattjoshi is, that the grievance, if any; can be against the Sterling Computers Ltd. with whom the complainant statedly entered into an agreement regarding publication of the advertisement or at the most against M.N. Publications, who were appointed official publishers of the directory. Neither the Sterling Computers Ltd. nor M.N. Publications had been impleaded as a party. On the contrary only MTNL had been impleaded as the sole opposite party. The complaint is, thus, liable to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties. We find force in the contention of Mr. Pattjoshi. The contract was with the publisher and MTNL came into the picture to the limited extent that under orders of the Supreme Court the MTNL passed on the monies collected from the advertisers alongwith advertising material to the official publishers, who was appointed after the removal of the earlier one. As admitted in the letter written by M.N. Publications, the aforesaid part was fulfilled by the MTNL. It was for the complainant to have made out a case 'showing how the M.N. Publications was liable to pay the compensation including interest on the amount paid to the earlier publisher. Nothing has been brought on record to show that either under direction of the Court or by the terms of their appointment M.N. Publications took over all liabilities of the earlier publisher namely Sterling Computer Ltd. We, therefore, hold that the appeal is barred by limitation, and is liable to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also liable to fail as no cause of action is disclosed against MTNL. The appeal is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-I.
Appeal dismissed.