PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner heard.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal because it was filed after the delay of 358 days.  The petitioner is so negligent that she has not cared to file the application of condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission.  It is stated that the said ground stands reproduced at page 26 of the order of the State Commission. The relevant para runs as follows:-

“Alongwith this appeal there is an application for condonation of delay of 358 days in filing the appeal.  It is stated in the application that copy of the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by District Forum, Karnal was received in the office of appellant-HUDA on 14.09.2013.  The against official namely Jaswant Singh of the office of appellant did not put up the said case before the concerned authority of the appellant for a long period.  It was only on 23.04.2012 the concerned official of the appellant put up the case before the higher authority for which explanation of the official was sought vide office memo No. 4616 dated 06.05.2013.  The delinquent official was working on contract basis and due to this lapse his contract was not allowed to be continued.  It is further stated in the application that after receiving the copy, the case file was sent to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for taking decision regarding approval of filing the appeal before the State Commission.  After the approval of Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula the counsel was engaged who requested the appellant to supply the complete record to enable him to file the appeal before the State Commission.  Thereafter, complete record of the case was provided to the counsel and thereafter he prepared the draft of appeal as well as prepared the demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory amount to be deposited with this Commission.  Thus, during this entire process, delay of 358 days in filing of the appeal has occurred, which was neither intentional nor deliberate which may be condoned in the interest of justice and under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.      The State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay by relying upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court authorities mentioned in “Bikram Dass Versus Financial Commissioner and others” [AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221], “State Bank of India Versus M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries” [(1) 2009 (2) CPC 1] and this Commission’s judgments reported in “U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Versus Brij Kishore Pandey & Another” [2009 (3) C.P.C. 595]  and “Shri Ramaratan M. Shriwas Versus Jayant H. Thakur” reported in [2011 (4) CPR 104 (N.C.)].

3.      Again, warning bells should have rung and this Revision Petition should have been filed before this Commission in time.  However, there is further delay of 107 days in filing the Revision Petition.  Delay has been

explained in paras No. 2 & 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which are reproduced as follows:-

“2.         That the engaged Advocate vide email dated 26.09.2013 intimated that the First Appeal No. 666 of 2013 has been dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2013. However, the certified copy of the said order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner Haryana in FA No. 666 of 2013 has not been sent by the engaged Advocate.  A letter bearing No. 10880 dated 06.11.2013 was written to the engaged counsel for providing a certified copy of the said order.  Thereafter the engaged Advocate sent the copy of the said order vide email dated 13.11.2013.  The Concerned dealing officials put up case file for further action.  Thereafter the case was sent to the competent authority i.e. Administrator, HUDA Panchkula for taking decision regarding filing of Revision Petition vide letter No. 11856 dated 09.12.2013 and the Administrator, HUDA Panchkula has taken a decision for filing of Revision Petition in the matter.

3.  That thereafter the record of the case was sent to engaged counsel vide letter No. 443 dated 21.01.2014.  Thereafter the grounds of revision petition were prepared and sent to the Administrator HUDA Panchkula vide email dated 09.02.2014 for approval.  After approval, documents were sent to the counsel on 03.04.2014.  Revision Petition is being filed without any further delay.  The Governmental procedures in respect of seeking sanctions, collecting relevant documents from concerned departments and preparing and filing the present revision petition has resulted in unavoidable delay of 107 days, which is unintentional unavoidable and highly regretted.”

4.      Counsel for the petitioner has referred authorities reported in “Bhag Singh & Ors. V. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. 1987 Supp. SCC 685” and “N. Balakrishnan versus M. Krishnamurthy (1988) 7 SCC 123”.  Counsel for the petitioner has explained that there is departmental and procedural delay. 

5.      The name of the engaged Advocate also finds no place in the application for condonation of delay.  It appears that no action was taken against  him.  The case is barred by time.  This view fully dovetails with the Supreme Court authorities reported in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045, R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari  I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

6.      We have heard the counsel for the petitioner.  Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that her case on merits is strong because

the complaint was filed after the elapse of 6 years.  She submits that the authority cited in “State Bank of India Versus M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (Supra)”  clearly lays down that the complaint should be filed within time. 

7.      We have heard the counsel for the petitioner for a while. We have perused the complaint.  Prima Facie it appears to be within time.  However, we refrain from deciding the case on merits as the State Commission has not adjudicated that matter. The case is hopelessly barred by time.  The question on merits is left open but the case is dismissed as time barred.