JUDGMENT These petitions for review are directed against the order dated 21.2.2008 passed by a Division Bench by which the two LPA No. 496 of 1999R and LPA No. 102 of 2000 which were directed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1999 and 14.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2381 of 1998R & CWJC 2408 of 1999R were dismissed. However, the review petitions are time barred by 160 days for which although explanation has been offered, we do not consider those explanations as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. But in spite of the delay, we considered it appropriate to consider the review petitions on merit merely to obviate miscarriage of justice, if there be any and hence we permitted the counsel to address us on the merit of the review petitions. The applications for condonation of delay in filling the review petitions thus be treated as allowed. Civil Review Nos. 26 and 27 of 2008 In so far as the merit of the review petitions are concerned, learned counsel submitted that although the petitioner is not aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the petitioner was directed to supply electricity to the respondent who is a handicapped person as he has lost both his eyes and a limb which has been amputated, the purpose of the review petition(s) is only to ensure that the petitioner company may not be directed to supply electricity to any other consumers on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as, the cause raised for supply of electricity is in the nature of relief which could be entertained and adjudicated by the consumer forum. Since a specific remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is available, the respondents should not have been granted relief by the learned Single Judge which has been upheld by the Division Bench. The petitioner had moved the learned Single Judge seeking supply of electricity on the ground that he is a consumer and therefore he should be granted the benefit of supply by the petitioner company which was allowed. The petitioner had moved the learned Single Judge seeking supply of electricity on the ground that he is a consumer and therefore he should be granted the benefit of supply by the petitioner company which was allowed. As it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the specific forum available to the consumer may not be ignored and a writ petition at the first instance by the consumer shall not be entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, we found substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner but to cut short the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by observing that the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been upheld by the Division Bench against which these review petitions have been filed, would not be treated as a precedent by other consumers as the relief which has been granted to the respondent is only in the special circumstances of the case keeping in view that he is visually a handicapped person as he is blind. In view of the aforesaid position, the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall not be treated as a precedent by other consumers. Accordingly, both the review petitions be treated as disposed of.