PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 495/2011   – Smt. Devki Sharma Vs. Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board by which, appeal was allowed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent Devki Sharma filed complaint before District forum and learned District forum vide order dated 4.2.1997 allowed complaint and directed OP to include complainant in lottery for allotment of house and allot house.  Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission.  Complainant filed execution application before District forum which was dismissed by learned District forum vide order dated 27.1.2011.  Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order gave one month time to complainant for filing of requisite forms and depositing amount on issuance of certificate against which, this revision petition along with application for condonation of delay has been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 

4.      Petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay of 162 days, but as per office report, there is delay of 156 days.  In application for condonation of delay, it was submitted that delay occurred due to frequent transfer of concerned officers like Deputy Housing Commissioner and Resident Engineer; so, delay may be condoned. Respondent filed reply to the application and submitted that officers were not transferred in the relevant period and prayed for dismissal of application.  In the application, it was mentioned that certified copy of order dated 11.9.2013 was received on 18.9.2013 and file remained with Resident Engineer upto 3.3.2014. It was also submitted that Dy. Housing Commissioner Mr. A.A. Khan was transferred on 20.12.2013 and Mr. Mani Ram joined on 21.12.2013 and Mr. A.M. Khan joined on that post on 1.3.2014; so, delay was caused.  No explanation has been given by petitioner why necessary action was not taken by Resident Engineer from 24.9.2013 to 3.3.2014 and information provided under RTI by OP to the complainant reveals that Dy. Housing Commissioner Mr. A.A. Khan joined on 18.7.2013 and was not transferred till 30.9.2014 which makes it clear that wrong averments have been made in the application regarding frequent transfers of Dy. Housing Commissioner.  As no reasonable explanation has been given in the application for condonation of inordinate delay of 156 days; application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.

5.      In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it

has   been observed:

          “We 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.”

6.        In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It 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.”

7.      Hon’ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect  of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;

“We have considered   the respective    submissions.  The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The   legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that   they    do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same   time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.”       

8.      Hon’ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 – Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

9.      Hon’ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under:

“It 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”.

  In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

10.    As far merits of the case is concerned, District forum allowed complaint in which direction was given to the OP to include complainant in lottery and allot house on same terms and conditions which was upheld by learned State Commission.  Learned District Forum dismissed execution application on the ground that inspite of information complainant did not deposit requisite amount; so, house was cancelled, but this observation is contrary to record.  OP vide letter dated 1.1.2014, transferred house in the name of Vijay Laxmi Sharma from complainant Devki Sharma on account of his death and intimation to complainant was sent by speed post dated 15.1.2014 and complainant vide letter dated 1.2.2014 remitted draft of Rs. 10,268/- dated 27.1.2014 to OP which makes it crystal clear that within requisite period complainant deposited amount with OP after transfer of house in the name of legal representative and even after receipt of amount, OP committed mistake in refunding Rs. 36,080/- vide letter dated 10.2.2014 whereas house should have been allotted as directed by Fora below in the complaint.

11.    I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation as well on merits.

12.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage on merits as well as being barred by limitation. Parties to bear their costs.