JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27-03-2014 whereby the said Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 17-11-2000, whereby the petitioner was directed to allot another plot to the complainant in lieu of the previous plot, in the same area or locality, at the old or the same rate or price at which the previous plot was allotted and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to him. Interest at the rate of 15% per annum was also awarded to the complainant. Since the appeal before the State Commission was barred by limitation an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal was also filed. The State Commission, however, took the view that the delay in preferring the appeal had not been satisfactorily explained and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission the petitioner-authority is before us by way of this revision petition.

2.      Since there is a delay of 89 days in filing the revision petition, IA No.6619 of 2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

3.      The application seeking condonation of delay, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

(a)     that the order which is sought to be revised was pronounced on     27-03-2014. The certified copy was prepared on 28-03-2014 and its free copy was dispatched to the office of Agra Development Authority where it was received somewhere in the month of May, 2014 when the assistant of the law department of the revisionist forwarded the same to the property section of ADA for necessary action, where the concerned clerk was on medical leave.

(b)     that, the respondent moved an application on 11-08-2014 and also made written complaint in the “Samadhan Divas” of the ADA on                 21-08-2014. Thereafter, Nodal Officer same day directed to redress the grievance within two days and forwarded to the concerned department on 22-08-2014.

(c)     that after, the Secretary of the Revisionist on the same day i.e. on 22-08-2014 realised that it is in the department someone is colluding with the respondent/complainant and he accordingly asked the explanation of the concerned clerk for his inaction within two days, the legal opinion was sought from the local panel lawyer on 11-09-2014 and meanwhile also replied to the query sought by the respondent under RTI Act. The secretary ADA finally by order dated 10-09-2014, immediately instructed the law department to contact the nominated counsel and that the revision filed before National Commission. After necessary sanction, the Vice Chairman of ADA who is the final authority instructed on 11-09-2014 to file the present revision. Hence, this revision.

(d)     that the concerned officer of the authority has contacted and handed over the papers for filing revision on 15-09-2014.

(e)     that immediately after receiving the papers the counsel for the revisionist drafted the revision and meanwhile obtained English translation of the impugned order done by local English translator.

(f)      that after receiving the English translation on 19-09-2014 the revision is being filed without any further loss of time.

4.      After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 30-09-2014 we directed the petitioner to file affidavit of a responsible officer of the authority disclosing therein the exact date on which the order of the State Commission was for the first time received in their office. The petitioner filed an affidavit stating therein that the said order was received on           09-05-2014. Since the affidavit filed by the petitioner authority was not of a responsible officer we directed the petitioner authority to file an affidavit of its Vice-Chairman explaining the delay of each and every day in filing the revision petition. The petitioner was directed, in particular, to disclose the movement of the file from the time the copy of the order was received by it on 09-05-2014. Since the copy of the impugned order had been received by the learned counsel for the petitioner authority on 28-03-2014 we also directed that the affidavit shall explain the action, if any, taken against the advocate who retained the copy of the order for such a long period.

5.      In compliance of our direction, an affidavit of the Secretary/Officiating Vice Chairman of the authority has been filed. A perusal of the affidavit would show that the certified copy of the impugned order was received in the receipts & dispatch branch on 09-05-2014 where from it was sent to the law department on 12-05-2014. The law department sent the copy to the property department on 15-05-2014 and it was received by the property section on 17-05-2014 along with covering letter of the law department, which is available on page 74 of the paper book. A perusal of the said letter would show that the law department requested the property department to take necessary action in case any appeal/revision was to be filed against the said order.

6.      The affidavit filed by the petitioner authority contains absolutely no explanation for the time period between 17-05-2014 when the copy of the order was received in the property section and 22-08-2014 when the file is stated to have been forwarded to the nodal officer in connection with the grievance expressed by the complainant in Samadhan Divas held on 21-08-2014. Considering that the period for filing the revision petition against the order of the State Commission was to expire sometime in June 2014 and copy of the impugned order had already been received by the property section on 17-05-2014, the property section of the authority could not have slept over the matter for more than four months without taking any action at all despite having been asked by the law department to take necessary action in case the order of the State Commission was sought to be challenged.

7.      It is stated in para 8 of the affidavit that the Secretary of the authority realized that someone in the department was colluding with the complainant and, therefore, he asked for the explanation of the concerned clerk and also sought the legal opinion. However, the affidavit does not disclose any action having been taken by the petitioner authority against the clerk alleged to be connivance with the complainant. Even the name of the concerned clerk has not been disclosed in the affidavit. We also find that though as per the affidavit the Secretary had realized the alleged collusion between the clerk and the complainant on 22-08-2014, the revision petition was not filed immediately thereafter and the opinion of the panel lawyer at Agra was sought on 11-09-2014 i.e. about 20 days after the alleged collusion was detected. This, in our opinion, was yet another instance of negligence in the office of the authority. In our opinion, when the Secretary realized the alleged connivance on 22-08-2014 the opinion of the panel counsel should have been sought immediately and obtained on priority basis.

8.      It is stated in the affidavit that after the counsel who filed this revision petition was contacted he noted that the impugned order was in Hindi and, therefore, English translation of the said order was obtained and the revision petition came to be filed on 23-09-2014. In our opinion, considering that the revision petition had already become barred by limitation even before 15-09-2014 the petitioner authority instead of waiting for English translation of the impugned order should have sought exemption from filing the said translation.

9.      Coming to the role of the advocate who received the copy of the order from the State Commission, the only action taken by the authority is to remove him from the panel. But, no complaint has been made to the bar council for his alleged misconduct in retaining the copy of the order for more than a month after he had received it from the State Commission.

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, in our opinion, the delay in filing the revision petition has not been satisfactorily explained. We also notice that the complaint in question was filed way back in the year 1995. The aim of the Act is to give expeditious relief to a consumer who is the victim of a deficiency in the service rendered to him. It would not be fair and reasonable to condone the delay in a matter of this nature where the complaint was instituted about 19 years ago, without the said delay having been satisfactorily explained.

Since the delay in filing the revision petition has not been satisfactorily explained, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation, along with the accompanying application.