This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 09.01.2014 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner authority and while agreeing with the order of the District Forum on merits, modified the operative portion of the order. 2. The revision, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 with the delay of 53 days as per the Registry and 41 days as per the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has moved the instant application IA No. 3823/2014 for condonation of delay. 3. The application of condonation of delay is badly drafted and it does not give details about the date on which the free certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner. In absence of the aforesaid delay, the computation of the petitioner regarding delay in filing of the revision petition cannot be accepted. As per the Registry, the impugned order was passed on 09.01.2014 and the copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 10.01.2014. The revision petition was filed on 02.06.2014. Therefore, the delay in filing of the revision petition obviously is of 53 days. 4. The explanation given for delay in filing of the revision petition is detailed in para 3 onwards in the application of condonation of delay which is reproduced thus: hat upon getting information regarding dismissal of Appeal No.1121/2010 the petitioner sought legal opinion from the concerned advocate to prefer instant revision petition. Thereafter, permission was sought to prefer instant Revision petition during January 2014 subsequently affirmed by Secretary (Zone-3), Kanpur Development Authority on 06.02.2014 and thereby the undersigned counsel for the petitioner was nominated to file the revision petition before the Honle National Commission on 13.03.2014. That on 24.03.2014, the undersigned Advocate received the present file and after studying the papers asked for some more documents (complete memo of appeal) which were supplied during April 2014 and affidavit to file the instant revision petition was supplied in the office of the undersigned Advocate during May 2014. Thereafter, it took some time in drafting the petition, translations etc 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the aforesaid explanation, it is clear that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred because of the time consumed in following administrative procedures to be followed for challenging the order of the State Commission. 6. Before adverting to the explanation for delay given by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to note that genesis of this revision petition is in the consumer complaint filed by the respondent in respect of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner authority regarding allotment of the house to the petitioner in the construction project undertaken by the authority. 7. From the record, it is evident the allotment letter was issued on 29.06.1968 and the possession of the subject house was delivered to the respondent on 14.03.1969. Admittedly, since 1969 the respondent is in possession of the house in question. The consumer complaint is regarding balance amount of the consideration amount and interest to be paid by the respondent and the registration of sale deed in favour of the respondent. It may be noted that almost 40 years have gone by but there is evidence on record that the petitioner authority took steps to recover the amount due from the respondent or to recover the possession of the house from the respondent. This speaks volume about the negligence on the part of the petitioner authority. 8. Coming to the explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition. In the instant case free copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner on 10.01.2014 and the revision petition was filed on 02.06.2014 i.e.143 days after the receipt of the order. As per Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005, the period of limitation for filing the petition is 90 days. Thus, there is delay of 53 days after the expiry of period of limitation. Admittedly, the concerned authority granted permission for filing the revision petition on 06.02.2014 i.e. 27 days after the receipt of the order. Thus the petitioner still had 53 days to file the revision petition. However, instead of filing the revision petition in time, it was filed after 106 days from the date of receipt of permission to file revision. No cogent explanation has been given as to why such a long time was taken by the petitioner authority to file the revision petition. This reflects on the casual manner in which the petitioner authority has dealt with this matter. Therefore, we do not find any reason to accept the explanation. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. 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. 9. The vague explanation given by the petitioner when considered in the light of the above noted position in law is not acceptable. Accordingly the application of condonation of delay is dismissed. As the delay has not been condoned, the revision petition is also dismissed.