1.       This group of Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Lucknow Development Authority, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, against a common order, dated 08.09.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeals No. 1922 & 1923 of 2003 and 614, 615, 616 and 617 of 2004.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 18.02.2003 and 04.06.2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Lucknow (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 936, 935, 1242, 7, 9 and 8 of 2000, preferred by the Respondents in these Revision Petitions.  By the said order, while coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner herein in not delivering possession of the plots in its Priyadarshani Scheme, Lucknow, and in not executing the sale deeds in favour of the Complainants, who were displaced by it under Nabiullah Road category, the District Forum had allowed the Complaints, inter alia, directing the Petitioner to inform to the Complainants about the formalities/amounts, required to be completed/deposited by the them and execute the registration and give possession of the plots to them, on their completing all the formalities, specifying the time-limits to be observed by both the sides for the said exercise.  The District Forum had also directed that in case of any default on the part of the Petitioner in complying with the directions issued, it would pay interest @ 9% - 12% p.a., on the amounts deposited by the Complainants from the date of such deposits, along with damages @ ₹100/- per day till the date of possession, besides ₹1000/- as litigation expenses, in each of the Complaints.    

2.       While arriving at the said conclusion, the District Forum kept in view the following circumstances, under which the Complainants were compelled to file the Complaints:

          The Complainants, being displaced persons of Nabiullah Road category, had been allotted plots by the Petitioner Authority in its Priyadarshani Scheme at Lucknow.  Though the Complainants had deposited certain amounts with the Petitioner for the said purpose in 1992 but neither the possession was delivered to them nor were sale deeds executed in their favour.  Accordingly, the afore-noted Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to deliver possession of the plots and register the sale deeds, besides paying amounts as claimed in the Complaints towards mental and physical torture as well as litigation expenses.

3.       Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum, as noted above, while allowing the Complaints, issued the afore-stated directions to the Petitioner.  

4.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner carried the matter in further Appeals to the State Commission, but without any success.  Hence, the present Revision Petitions.

5.       It is pointed out by the office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay ranging between 154 – 156 days in filing the same.  Since the present Revision Petitions arise out of a common impugned order and identical Applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, have been filed along with the same, for the sake of convenience, we propose to examine the explanation furnished in the Application filed in Revision Petition No. 1436 of 2016.  In the said Application, the Petitioner has furnished the following crisp explanation:

“3.      That the Appeal No. 1922/2003 was dismissed against the Petitioner herein by Hon’ble State Commission, Lucknow vide order dated 8.9.2015.

4.       That vide letter dated 14.9.2015, the Advocate for the Petitioner sent a copy of the Order dated 8.9.2015 to the Petitioner office which was received on 30.9.2015.

5.       That on 1.10.2015, the permission was sought to file the Revision Petition.  That vide noting dated 28.10.2015, the file was forwarded to the Chief Legal Advisor who gave permission to file the Revision Petition on 29.10.2015.  Thereafter the file was received in the office of the undersigned in the month of February 2016.

7.       That thereafter the undersigned after studying the papers asked for some more documents (complete memo of appeal, etc.) which was received in the office of the undersigned in the first week of March 2016.

8.       Thereafter, being a batch matter it took some time in drafting the petition, translations etc.  The draft petition and affidavit was sent to the Petitioner Authority on 2^nd of April 2016.

9.       That the notarized affidavit was received in the office of the undersigned on 2.05.2016.”   

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.  

7.       In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is far from satisfactory.  Though it is pleaded that copy of the impugned order had been sent by the Petitioner’s Advocate to the Petitioner on 08.09.2015, which had been received by the Petitioner on 30.09.2015, we find that the said plea is not supported by any proof, showing that indeed there was delay of 22 days in receiving the said letter at its end.  Manifestly, after receiving the copy of the impugned order, while the Petitioner took one month in taking a decision to file the Revision Petition(s), thereafter it also took over three months in transmitting the file to the present Advocate.  Subsequently, the Application is silent as to the dates when the Advocate sought for some more documents and when the draft Petitions were prepared and sent to the Petitioner.  Further, the Petitioner took one month in sending the notarized affidavit to the Advocate.  The cumulative effect of all the above slack exercise undertaken by the Petitioner/its Advocate is that the present Revision Petitions are barred by limitation by inordinate delay of 154 – 156 days, over and above the statutory period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, for filing the same.  In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for condonation of the said delay shows that it was not prosecuting the matter with all the seriousness and alacrity it deserved.

8.       The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts.  Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :

“28.    Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

9.       In view of the aforementioned facts, we are of the view that the Petitioner has failed to make out a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of inordinate delay of 154 - 156 days in filing the present Revision Petitions and, accordingly, we are not inclined to condone the same, more so, when condonation of such unexplained delay would cause further harassment to the Complainants, who, despite having concurrent orders in their favour by both the Fora below, have been waiting for over two decades to have a roof over their heads.            

10.     Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.