1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Sub-Divisional Officer (Operations), Sub-Division, UHBVNL, Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 02.07.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1233 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 31.10.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jind (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 213 of 2012.  By the said order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in issuing the memo in question, demanding a sum of ₹1,17,538/- on the premise that he had illegally shifted the tube-well connection from LT line to HT line, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner herein to quash the said memo, with liberty to recover the said amount from Opposite Party No.2, the Contractor of the Petitioner, if there was any illegality in shifting of tube-well connection of the Complainant from LT line to HT line.

2.       Aggrieved with the said order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner challenged the same before the State Commission, which, as noted above, has affirmed the order passed by the District Forum.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.  

3.       It is pointed out by the Office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch there is a delay of 491 days in filing the same.  An Application, praying for condonation of the delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition. 

4.       I have heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner at length.  However, I am not convinced with the reasons cited in the Application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Revision Petition.

5.       In para-5 of the said Application, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Revision Petition was sent for signing on 17.10.2015 to the Petitioner, which was returned to the Counsel in November, 2015, but, due to personal engagements of the previous Counsel, she could not hand over the Petition to the present Counsel till May, 2016.  This inordinate delay of eight months between 17.10.2015 till May, 2016 is unexplained, except for stating the reason of ‘personal engagements’.  Thereafter, it was stated that the Petitioner contacted the previous Counsel only around mid-January, 2017.  Once again, there is a gap of eight months between May, 2016 and January, 2017, for which there is only a bald submission that the file of the Revision Petition was tied up with another file and, therefore, could not be filed earlier.  There is absolutely no plausible explanation given for the inordinate delay of 491 days.

6.       In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a sufficient cause, for condonation of inordinate delay of 491 days in filing the Revision Petition, which I am not inclined to condone.  This view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein while dealing with the question of delay by the Government Departments, the Hon’ble Apex 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.”                              (emphasis supplied)

7.       Resultantly, the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground of limitation and is dismissed accordingly.