Respondent moved petitioner Corporation for provision of electricity connection for agricultural operation on 13.02.1985. Pursuant to which, a demand for Rs. 1,510/- was raised against respondent on 27.03.1991. Requisite deposits along-with Form were made by respondent on 25.04.1991. The grouse of respondent was that even after deposit of requisite amount and observing all the formalities, electricity connection was not provided. Alleging deficiency on part of petitioner Corporation with their service, complaint bearing No. 132/2003, was filed by respondent on 21.10.2003. Aforesaid complaint was, however, withdrawn by respondent without any liberty given to him to file fresh complaint. However, another complaint was filed by respondent on 22.01.2004, on similar grounds. It appears from the finding of District Forum that claim was resisted by petitioner Corporation holding that considerable time was lost for misplacement of file in the Department. Claim was resisted also on premises that since other formalities to secure electricity connection have not been observed by respondent, electricity connection was not provided. District Forum, however, on consideration of pleadings, while accepting complaint, directed petitioner Corporation to provide electricity connection to the respondent within two months and also to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per annum as compensation from the date of demand in lieu of agricultural produce which respondent could have got, had electricity connection been provided. Litigation cost was also awarded. Aggrieved petitioner Corporation filed appeal before State Commission which, having noticed a number of infirmities in the pleadings of Corporation, affirmed finding of District Forum with only modification that compensation of Rs. 25,000/- per annum would be payable by petitioner Corporation from 22.01.2004. Though there was delay of 194 days in filing appeal by Corporation, State Commission, in its wisdom, condoned the delay and upheld the finding of District Forum on merit. Though deficiency on part of petitioner Corporation is writ large in providing electricity connection to respondent, laxity on part of respondent too, in prosecuting his cause, cannot be lost sight of, as even though application of respondent to secure electricity connection was rejected by petitioner Corporation as early as on 07.01.1992, it was not before 01.01.2004 that complaint was filed, after a flux of about 12 years. Mandate flowing from Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall not admit a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However, such a complaint may be entertained after the period prescribed in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. There is no gain saying in the fact that though cause of action had arisen on 07.01.1992 when the application of respondent seeking electricity connection, was rejected by petitioner Corporation, but the respondent, for the reasons best known to him, did not come into action and it was only after a flux of about 12 years that he had chosen to file complaint, alleging deficiency against petitioner Corporation. Both fora below appears to have lost notice of this issue. While adjudicating the matter, provision of Section 24-A is pre-emptory in nature, which cannot be over-looked before a complaint is admitted. There is no gain saying in the fact that respondent did not move fora below, even though there was inordinate delay, for its condonation. Once the respondent is found unsuited on this premises, consideration of case on merit would be of no consequence. Finding of Fora below is consequently set aside and revision petition is allowed, with no order as to cost.