1. This revision is directed against the orders of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow dated 30.11.2010 and 18.03.2013. The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with the delay of 1150 days so far as order dated 30.11.2010 is concerned and the delay of 313 days (as per the petitioner) so far as order dated 18.03.2013 is concerned. The petitioner, therefore, has moved IA No. 3287 / 2014 for condonation of delay. 2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent Babu Lal filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner authority alleging deficiency in service in respect of allotment of LIG house by the petitioner authority. Consumer Complaint was resisted by the petitioner opposite party. The District Forum Kanpur Dehat on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence produced came to the conclusion that the petitioner authority was guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the claim of the respondent in following terms: he Claim is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.36000/- paid by the plaintiff and 5% interest from the date of payment on 03.05.1994 within 60 dates of the judgment. The plaintiff is also entitled to get Rs.200/- as suit costs as well 3. The petitioner authority being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal being appeal No. 2511/2001 before the State Commission Uttar Pradesh Lucknow. The appeal, however, was dismissed by the State Commission for non-prosecution vide order dated 30.11.2010. The petitioner authority instead of challenging the order dated 30.11.2010 in the National Commission filed an application for restoration of the appeal giving explanation for the non-appearance. The State Commission dismissed the said application for restoration of appeal vide impugned order dated 08.03.2013 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541, wherein it was held that District Forum and State Commission do not have to review / recall their own order. This prompted the petitioner to file the revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of revision petition against the impugned order is unintentional. So far as the delay in filing a revision against order dated 30.11.2010 is concerned, it occurred because at the relevant time, there was confusion regarding the power of the fora below to review their own orders and under the mistaken belief the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 CPC for restoration of the complaint. Thus, it is contended that the period of limitation should be computed from the subsequent order dated 18.03.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the application for restoration of appeal. 5. Even if the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and the period of limitation is computed from the date of the impugned order dated 18.03.2013, then also, the revision has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with the delay of 333 days as per the Registry and 313 days as per the allegations in the application for condonation of delay. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of revision petition against the impugned orders is unintentional. The petitioner, all-through intended to challenge the impugned orders. It is pointed out that immediately after the dismissal of the application for restoration of complaint, the petitioner applied for certified copy and obtained the same on 26.04.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner sought legal opinion from the concerned advocate who advised to file the revision petition. After that the petitioner department nominated the present counsel for filing the revision petition. The paper book was received by the concerned advocate on July 2013 who after going through the paper book asked for some more documents which was supplied on 24.03.2014 and the affidavit to be filed alongwith the revision petitioner was furnished to the concerned advocate in April 2014. Thereafter, the revision petition was drafted and filed. 7. The above explanation given for delay in filing of revision petition is highly unsatisfactory. The explanation given is quite vague and it is without any details. It is well settled that in order to succeed on the application of condonation of delay, party concerned is required to explain each and every day of delay. In the instant case as per the admission of the petitioner, there is 313 days in filing of revision petition but the detailed explanation for such a long delay has not been given. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay in view of the following judgments of the Honle Supreme Court: In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t 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 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 In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ; e 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. Honle Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down that; t 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 Recently, Honle Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held: 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 bonafide, 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 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. 31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs. 8. In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the application of condonation of delay. Application is, therefore, dismissed. As the delay has not been condoned, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation. No order as to costs.