This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DA against the impugned order dated 28.08.2012, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 691/2010, elhi Development Authority versus Dinesh Kumar Gupta vide which, the appeal filed against the order dated 04.03.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in complaint no. 709/2009 was ordered to be dismissed on grounds of delay in filing the said appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner DDA floated a scheme known as ew Pattern Registration Housing Scheme 1979and the complainant/respondent registered himself on 26.09.1979 for allotment of an MIG flat vide application no. 15257. The complainant was given registration no. 23549 and priority number 21715. According to the complainant, he was residing at D-4, Hakikat Rai Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi at the time of registration. Later on, he changed his address and informed the petitioner/OP vide letter dated 30.04.81 for the change of address. However, he did not hear anything from the OP for about 30 years. The complainant has stated that the OP floated another scheme, DA Housing Scheme 2008on 06.08.2008, whereupon he approached the OP to know about the fate of his registration made in 1979. He was informed that he had already been allotted a flat in the year 1997 at Rohini and a demand-cum-allotment letter was also sent to him. As per the complainant, he never received the said allotment letter, because the same was sent by the OP at his previous address. The complainant requested for a direction to the OP to allow and deliver the possession of an MIG category flat in Delhi and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh on account of mental torture and agony. The District Forum vide order dated 4.3.2010 directed that the OP shall allot a MIG flat in Rohini, preferably in sector 23, at the prevalent cost and deliver the possession as early as possible. An appeal filed before the State Commission against this order was ordered to be dismissed vide impugned order, saying that there was delay of 171 days in filing the appeal, which was a serious lapse on the part of the appellant. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present petition has been filed. 3. At the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in response to his application for registration under the ew Pattern Housing Registration Scheme 1979,an MIG Flat 268, 2nd floor Pocket I, Sector 23, Rohini had been allotted to the complainant on 26.3.97 on cash down basis. A demand-cum-allotment letter was also issued to him with block date 10.07.98 to 14.07.98 and it was sent at his address, D-4, Hakikat Rai Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. However, since nothing was heard from the complainant and no money was deposited by him, the said allotment was cancelled by the DDA on 19.04.99, but before that, a show-cause notice was also issued to him on 21.01.99. As per letter dated 19.04.99, he was also asked to apply for refund of his deposited amount by submitting the original documents like FDR/Registration Certificate, etc. The learned counsel stated that the letters regarding change of address were not received by them. Learned counsel further stated that the State Commission had rejected their appeal against the order of the District Forum on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. However, they had shown sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in their application filed before the State Commission along with the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has drawn our attention to the application for condonation of delay, filed before the State Commission by the petitioner, saying that they have admitted that the copy of the order of the District Forum was received in their office on 04.03.2010. It has been stated therein that the case remained under examination at various levels and hence, there was delay in filing the petition. There were no sufficient reasons given for condoning the said delay and hence the State Commission had passed their order after making a correct appreciation of facts on record. Learned counsel further stated that the complainant never received the allotment letter sent by the DDA in July 1998 and that the complainant duly informed them about the change in address by sending letters in writing. 5. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay have observed as follows:- he order was passed on 10.02.2010 which as will appear from the Forum record, was dispatched to the appellant OP on 10.2.10, which in normal course, would have reached OP appellant by or before seven days, i.e., 17.2.10. The limitation for filing of the appeal is of 30 days. The appeal could or should have therefore been filed by 19.3.10 while the appeal was filed on 1.09.10. The appellant in his delay condonation application has not mentioned the period of delay. It is a serious lapse on the part of the appellant. The actual delay in filing of the appeal is of 171 days. The reason assigned for condonation of delay is, that the complaint was itself time barred, and this aspect is not properly dealt with by the District Consumer Forum. This contention, cannot be looked into at this stage at the time of deciding the delay condonation application, as it pertains to the merits of the appeal. 6. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed by the DDA before the State Commission reveals that they have admitted having received copy of the order of the District Forum on 04.03.2010. Thereafter, the matter remained under examination at various levels in the office, for example, the Dealing Assistant, the Assistant Director, Director (Housing), Commissioner (Housing), etc. The matter was also sent for obtaining legal opinion and finally the file was sent to the petitioner lawyer on 26.08.2010. The appeal in question was filed on 1.09.2010. No other reason has been advanced in the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 7. It is crystal clear from these facts that the matter remained under examination at various levels in the office of the DDA without any justifiable reason. It appears that there was no sense of urgency on the part of any official of the DDA to ensure that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time of 30 days. It has been clearly stated in the section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that an appeal against the order of the District Forum can be preferred before the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It has been laid down in the proviso to this section that if the State Commission is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time, it may entertain the appeal even after the limitation. In the present case, however, the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay do not provide any sufficient reasons for the condonation of such delay and the view taken by the State Commission seems to be quite rational and correct. It has been observed by the Honle Supreme Court in a number of judgements given recently that unless a cogent and convincing explanation is there for the delay in filing an appeal/petition, the same should not be condoned. Reference may be given to the decisions of the Honle Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. where the court 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. 7. Honle Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Ansul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: 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 8. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that since there was no sufficient ground explained by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, the State Commission rightly took the decision to dismiss the appeal on grounds of delay. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error. The order is, therefore, uphold and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.