1.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 09.04.2021  in Appeal No. 462 of 2015  of the State Commission,  Delhi.   

2.       The petition has been filed with a reported delay of 512 days.  As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

3.       Learned counsel has reiterated the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application.  It has been submitted that the impugned Order was passed on 09.04.2021 but because of the covid pandemic the Order could not be challenged. Contention is that Hon’ble Apex Court has also exempted the covid afflicted period from being counted towards period of limitation.  Further submission is that when the decision to file the revision petition was taken the file was entrusted to a panel lawyer but subsequently there was a change of lawyer and so another panel lawyer was entrusted with the file who took some time to ascertain from its relevant department and provide relevant comments to the counsels for drafting  the revision petition.  It has also been submitted that the National Commission was visited to file the revision petition where  it was informed that certified copy of the impugned order shall be required and so the same was applied for which took further time to procure the same.  Submission is that all this process consumed time causing the delay. Submission is that delay being neither deliberate nor intentional the same may be condoned.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been submitted that the exemption period as was directed by Hon’ble Apex Court had ended by 28.02.2022 and the subsequent period which lapsed is a long gap after which the petition has been filed which has no valid explanation.  It has also been submitted  that the petitioner being a well-structured and well-evolved public department cannot hide behind the excuse that it was not aware about the need to have a certified copy of the impugned Order and, therefore, applying for the same at a belated stage is neither justified nor explicable.  Further submission is that change of the panel lawyers is an internal matter of department mismanagement and cannot be recognized as a valid reason to justify the delay.  Submission is that delay being totally unjustified cannot be condoned and the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.    

4.       Perused the record in the light of the submissions made by leaned counsels.  

5.       Normally, the Bench adopts a kind of liberal indulgence in favour of the defaulting appellant / petitioner who fails to file the appeal or other 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 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 appeal or 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 appellant / petitioner  who seek judicial indulgence in this regard.

6.       When the Bench proceeds to make an estimate and evaluation regarding the validity of the reasons shown for filing the petitioner with a significant delay it finds it difficult to call the reasons shown as being good grounds on the basis of which the huge period of delay may be ignored.  So far as the period of exemption in the wake of the covid pandemic situation is concerned there is absolutely no problem to condone the same.  It has got to be done in the wake of the directions issued by Hon’ble the Apex Court but such exemption period had ended by the end of February, 2022.  The real problem starts with regard to the period which followed subsequently.  The petition has been filed on 02.12.2022 which is not after days or weeks but after several months and admittedly according to the delay condonation application there is delay of 95 days which is by no means either insignificant or small.  The plea that the petitioner belatedly came to know about the need of the certified copy when it approached the National Commission to file the revision petition is also, to speak the least, not very impressing.  It is not a case where the petitioner was a layman, illiterate and unaware of the legal procedure.  The petitioner is Delhi Development Authority and for it, it is not an unusual course of business to file petitions in the courts whenever the need arises and whenever it is called for.  For a petitioner like the one which is relevant in this matter and which is a highly structured public department, such kind of plea is simply not available.  Even otherwise the contents of the delay condonation application are such which are incongruous with the submissions made in this regard.  It has been clearly mentioned in the delay condonation application that the decision to file the revision petition had been very well taken long back and it has been decided that the petition shall be filed by 30.05.2022 as per the exemption provided by Apex Court.  The relevant portion of the delay condonation application in this regard may be quoted hereinbelow which reads thus:-

          “… The Department decided that they will file the present petition by 30^th May, 2022 as per extension provided by the Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) 3/2020 and in furtherance to the same the Department entrusted the present Revision Petition to another panel lawyer who later returned the file due to some personal difficulty….”     

          From the perusal of the contents of the delay condonation application it is very much clear that the department was not only very well aware about the impugned Order but it also decided to file the revision petition against the same in the National Commission.  All this could not have happened without having full knowledge about the impugned Order and its contents.  In such circumstances applying for the certified copy at an inordinately late stage cannot be vindicated or accepted as a good ground to earn condonation.  So far as the change of panel lawyer is concerned certainly the submission made by the counsel for respondent appears to be correct in this regard that it is petitioner’s internal matter and cannot be recognized to be a very credible convincing explanation to deserve condonation of 95 days.  It is true that while evaluating the sufficiency of cause with regard to the circumstances, which resulted in the delay in filing the present petition, the Bench does adopt a pragmatic approach and not a pedantic one and it does keep in perspective the practical side of the working of a particular institution or sector, Public or Private as it may be. The Commission does make due allowance in that regard.  But such liberal disposition should not be construed to imply that such a long rope may ever be granted to any institution, company or sector which may go to result in shelving the law of limitation completely or which may go to render the same nugatory and reduce it to a naught.   Condoning a small delay is one thing and that too when there is a credible explanation available for the same. But a delay of 95 days after the end of exemption period has to have a credible convincing and acceptable explanation which appears to be wholly lacking in the present matter.  The delay condonation application does not seem to be of much worth or substance.  The onus to show the factual basis from which may emanate good grounds to justify the delay has remained undischarged.   Sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the  Bench  has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

7.       Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

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