Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2017 passed by the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Consumer Complaint No.23/3012. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had booked a flat with the OP/appellant herein. Later on, as the complainant did not pay the instalments, the OP cancelled the booking but did not refund the amount taken from the complainant. A complaint was filed by the complainant before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the complaint in the sense that the OP has been directed to refund the amount taken from the complainant alongwith 10% p.a. interest. Now, the OP has come in appeal before this Commission and the appeal has been filed with a delay of 102 days as reported by the office. The application for condonation of delay has been filed for condoning this delay. The facts stated in the application for condonation of delay are as under: “4. That the limitation for filing the instant appeal expired on 11.9.2017. Thus, there is delay of 100 days in filing the present First Appeal and same was caused on account of time taken in translation of the documents from Hindi to English and in getting various documents typed for the purpose of filing the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the delay as mentioned above is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather it has happened due to the reasons explained herein above.” 3. It is clear from the above that the reasons are not sufficient to condone the delay. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that procedural delay cannot be sufficient and reasonable cause to condone the delay as held in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 as under; “29. In our view, it is the 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 bonafide 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay ”. 4. It is also to be noted that special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ; “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 adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras”. 5. The above authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the present case and negligence and inaction is imputable to the appellant in filing the present appeal. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. | 
