Proxy counsel for the Appellant is present and submits that arguing counsel is not present. The ordersheet shows that adjournment had been sought on previous date also. Today, the cross appeal has been heard and decided. The present Appeal has been filed with the -2- delay of 988 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. Counsel for the respondent submits that arguments be heard on this application and matter be disposed of which is pending since long. In view of this, arguments are heard on this application. IA No. 2558 of 2021 ( condonation of delay) The applicant has alleged that delay is of 622 days and according to the Registry, delay is of 988 days. In the application, the grounds seeking condonation for delay states that order dated 01.06.2018 was downloaded from the official website and was examined by the legal cell GMADA on 22.08.2019 for approval. The approval was granted on 03.09.2019. The file was, thereafter, sent to the Ld. Advocate General Punjab for engagement of panel counsel and the file was received along with sanction on 16/20.09.2019. Copy of the order was sent to Delhi by post which was received on 22.10.2019. Necessary documents were collected and sent to Delhi only on 02.07.2020 by email. Covid had happened and due to that, appeal could not be filed on time. It is prayed that delay be condoned. 2. It is argued by the counsel for the respondent that benefit of Covid is not available to the appellant because period of limitation had long -3- expired before the onslaught of Covid. It is further submitted that delay is shown to have occurred due to administrative reasons which are not the sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. 3. I have perused the file and had given thoughtful consideration to the reasons given in the application seeking condonation of delay. 4. It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The person who is seeking condonation of delay is required to explain the delay of each and every date and the reasons which prevented him from filing the appeal / revision within the period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as under: “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at
-4- this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 5. In case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 6. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that special nature of period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with such applications. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious -5- adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Fora." 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” has clearly held that government departments must show their promptness and eagerness to ensure that they had performed their duties with diligence and commitment. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “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 government departments.’ 8. From the reasons given in the application, it is apparent that delay had occurred due to the slow movement of file from one table to another and are purely administrative reasons which could have easily been avoided if the concerned officers had acted promptly keeping in mind the period of limitation in filing the Appeal which is 30 days. No reasonable explanation for condoning such long delay has been shown. The application has no force and same is dismissed. -6- First Appeal No. 208 of 2021 9. Since Appeal is barred by limitation, it is dismissed. | 
