Order dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 589/2011 is sought to be questioned in these proceedings filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined the prayer of the complainant for condonation of 174 days delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission by observing as under:- he order under challenge is dated 20.05.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 132/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhojpur at Ara (hereinafter to be referred to as District Forum only). As per averment in the petition, the order was communicated on the same day but the learned counsel of the Housing Board on receipt of the order transmitted the same in the office of the executive engineer, PH Division, Housing Board, Patna on 22.05.2011 and thereafter, it was sent to the Legal Adviser of the Housing Board at the headquarter Patna on 25.05.2011 and thereafter steps were taken for reply being filed by the Housing Board and the decision by the Managing Director of the Housing Board to file an appeal was taken and drafting for memo of appeal was prepared on 16.06.2011 and thereafter the record was sent to the counsel of the Housing Board drafted the appeal on 07.07.2011. In addition to that, nothing tangible seems to have been stated in the petition which prevented the appellant in filing of the appeal. The appeal seems to have been filed on 11.11.2011. We are unable to find any substance to hold that there was intervening circumstances beyond the reach of the appellant to present their appeal in time. It is nothing but the official process and negligent act on the part of the Housing Board for which some officials of the Housing Board may be held responsible but that ultimately caused filing of the appeal hopelessly barred by limitation of 174 days. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In order to assail the order of the State Commission, he submits that in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner had duly explained the each day delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. Having considered and perused the application for condonation of delay, we are also of the same view as the State Commission that undue delay in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained. The petitioner cannot seek exercise of a judicial discretion in his favour in the matter of condonation of delay simply on the ground that it is a functionary of the State and the delay was more procedural than deliberate. We must reject this contention because if the petitioner has a good case, they should have processed the matter expeditiously at all levels and should have filed the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation rather than taking unduly long time about 6 months extra in filing the appeal. In our view the order passed by the Fora below suffers from no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.