PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 1415/ 2010, the Petitioner, M.P. State Seeds Certification Agency, has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam in complaint No. 94 / 2010 by which order the said District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant by giving certain directions to the petitioner and the dealer / supplier of the seeds. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that it was highly belated and no satisfactory explanation was given for condonation of undue delay. 2. We have heard Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Patidar, counsel for the respondent no. 1 & Mr. Jitendra Sharma, counsel for the respondent no.3 and have considered their submissions. One of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner is that assuming for the sake of argument that there was some defect / deficiency in the matter of supply of the seeds still the petitioner going by its charter and functions had no role in supplying the seeds and its role was only for inspecting the quality of seeds about its germination, quality etc. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 / complainant submits that not contented with the relief granted to the respondent / complainant, the respondent had also filed appeal bearing No. 827 / 2011 before the State Commission which still is pending likewise, respondent no. 3, i.e., Agrawal Chemicals & Fertilizers, supplier of the seeds has also filed appeal bearing no. 858 / 2011 which is still pending before the State Commission. 3. Having noted the above developments, we are of the view that the State Commission ought to have exercised its judicial discretion in condoning the delay more particularly when the two appeals filed against the same impugned order have been entertained and are still pending before the State Commission. In our view, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and to direct the State Commission to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits which is not been done so far. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission will be deemed to have been condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent no. 1 / complainant. The appeal is restored on the Board of the State Commission with a direction to the State Commission to decide the appeal on merits along with the above-numbered two appeals as expeditiously as may be practicable. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.09.2012, date already fixed by State Commission in above-numbered appeals.