1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 16.08.2023 in Appeal No. 1317 of 2023 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh arising out of Order dated 29.04.2023 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 185 of 2022.

2.       It appears that the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and feeling aggrieved by the same the appeal was filed in the State Commission by the Petitioner. As the appeal was filed with delay after the expiry of the limitation period as has been provided under law the same is dismissed on the ground of limitation and the condonation of delay which was sought by the petitioner was rejected. 

3.       Feeling aggrieved by the same the present petition has been filed. 

4.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 16.08.2023 of the State Commission and the delay condonation application i.e. moved before the State Commission. 

5.       Learned counsel has once again tried to reiterate the same submissions as were advanced before the State Commission and has sought to contend that the delay ought to have been condoned.  Submission is that the District Commission had passed its order on 29.04.2023 and its certified copy was applied on 05.05.2023 which was received on 16.05.2023 by the counsel for the petitioner / appellant.  The copy of the Order was sent to the petitioner and it was then forwarded to the legal department.  In the meanwhile the petitioner /appellant wrote a letter to the complainant and explored the possibility of a settlement and gave him certain options to choose.  The petitioner / appellant kept waiting for the response of the complainant but there was no response from the side of the complainant.  This process consumed time and eventually the petitioner decided to file the appeal.  After the decision was made to file the appeal time also got consumed in procuring relevant documents and preparing the draft.  It was because of all these reasons that caused the delay which was not intentional and, therefore, ought to have been condoned by the State Commission.  Learned counsel, however, has not been able to point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission.

6.       Normally, the Bench leans favourably towards the defaulting petitioner who fails to file the petition within the limitation period.  It is ordinarily preferred to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation.  But while saying so it does not imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided can either be blissfully ignored or soft paddled at will.  Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment on law of limitation.  The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with.  In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial as it may be can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period.  It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the Bench that there were justifiable reasons which explain as to why the petition was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Bench cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion which this Bench exercises in the matters of condonation of delay is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously.  The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the petitioner who seeks judicial indulgence in this regard.   

7.       When this Bench considers the explanation that has been offered to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and considers the reasoning as has been adopted by the learned State Commission, it does not find any such irregularity in the impugned Order which may be made the basis to castigate the same.  In fact under Consumer Protection Act the powers have been conferred on the Commission under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to condone the delay if sufficient cause is found which may go to vindicate or justify the delay.  The State Commission was of the view that the reasons which have caused the delay as have been portrayed on behalf of petitioner could not be said to be beyond the control of petitioner. If a particular Order was passed by District Commission which was not applicable to the petitioner, legal recourse ought to have been taken against the same within the prescribed period of time.  If the department chose to write some letter to the complainant and wanted to find another way of settling the issue it was its own choice.  The response of the farmer was not going to change the legal authenticity or legal status of the District Commission’s Order which was passed.  Whenever, a particular Order is passed by a judicial or quasi judicial statutory forum it has its own binding effect and has to be complied with unless some superior fora sets it aside.  The process of amicable settlement could have materially affected the fate of the District Commission’s Order had it been done during the course of the proceedings which was taking place before the District Commission. After the Order had already been pronounced in due course of law and acquired its binding effect, any attempts to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement was not at all going to affect the period of limitation which is provided to file the appeal against the same. It appears that the law regarding the limitation was taken to be granted. The State Commission did not feel satisfied that there was any sufficient reason to explain away the delay or which may go to earn the condonation of the same.

8.     When this Bench is called upon to exercise its revisional jurisdiction it has to see whether the Order under challenge suffers with any infirmity which may be called a jurisdictional error or whether it may be said that the fora below either exceeded its jurisdiction or abstained to exercise the same. The Commission also makes an attempt to see whether there is any element of perversity which may be said to have gone to afflict the findings arrived at in the impugned Order.  It goes without saying that the discretion to condone the delay which has been conferred to the State commission has to be judiciously exercised.  This Bench after considering the whole record feels constrained to observe that the impugned Order does not suffer with any such material irregularity or element of perversity or any such error of jurisdiction which may persuade this Bench to interfere in the findings or which may persuade this Bench to take a different view of the matter.  It may also be observed that while exercising its revisional jurisdiction this Commission operates within limited ambit and does not rush to meddle with the judicious view of the lower fora unless it is found to be wholly unreasonable or is violative of jurisdictional requirements. [Refer: Order dated 08.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr. & Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269)]

9.       The petition being sans merits stands dismissed.         

10.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.