PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 235 days in filing the First Appeal before the State Commission. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the petitioner has not attached the application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission. However, the order passed by the State Commission is very clear. The delay was explained in the following para:- “The impugned order was passed on 17.04.2013, the copy of which was received by the appellant on 20.04.2013 and the appeal is filed on 16.12.2013 which is apparently time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed on record accompanied with an affidavit of Smt. Ambi Bisht, Deputy Secretary of the appellant stating therein that the order of the learned District Consumer Forum first came to the knowledge of the department when the order was so obtained and thereby by received on 20.4.2013. In this way the delay is approx. 7 months and 25 days that is not intentional but due to the circumstances and formalities and is liable to be condoned. It is also stated that the delay is unintentional and not deliberate on the part of appellant. The appellant is a big department and requires formalities for getting permission from higher officials for appointing the counsel to present the appeal and also for preparation of the appeal arranging the documents and thereby getting it signed.” 2. It is thus clear that the petitioner has moved the application for condonation of delay on the ground of departmental and procedural delay. However, there is huge delay. Day to day delay was never explained. The case is hopelessly barred by time. This view finds support by the following authorities. 3. In Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045, R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045 4. Consequently, we hereby dismiss the Revision Petition as barred by time before the State Commission. | 
