ORDER 1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 13.08.2014 in C.C. No. 199 of 2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’. 2. The Appellant herein, who was the Complainant before the State Commission, is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Jal Nigam’. The Respondents herein, who were the Opposite Parties before the State Commission, are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Postal Department’. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Jal Nigam and the Postal Department, and perused the material on record. 4. This Appeal has been filed with delay of 54 days. 5. In the interest of justice, and considering the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, and to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned. 6. The Complaint Case No. 199 of 2013 was dismissed on limitation by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 13.08.2014. 7. The matter, briefly, is that as per a Notification dated 08.03.1995 of Ministry of Finance, Government of India, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Notification’, which came into force with effect from 01.04.1995, Kisan Vikas Patras, hereinafter being referred to as the ‘KVPs’, could not be purchased by Corporations / Organizations. The Jal Nigam, a State Government Corporation / Organisation, purchased KVPs from the Postal Department on 19.04.2000 and 31.05.2000. The maturity value of the KVPs was not paid by the Postal Department to the Jal Nigam on the dates of maturity i.e. on 19.04.2006 and on 31.05.2006. The principal amount deposited with the Postal Department was not refunded by the Postal Department on the dates of maturity i.e. on 19.04.2006 and 31.05.2006. Interest as admissible under the KVPs on the dates of maturity i.e. on 19.04.2006 and 31.05.2006 was not paid. The principal amount deposited with the Postal Department was refunded by the Postal Department to the Jal Nigam on 10.04.2010. Interest as just and equitable (albeit lower than that admissible on the KVPs), from the dates of deposit i.e. from 19.04.2000 and 31.05.2000, or from the dates of maturity i.e. from 19.04.2006 and 31.05.2006, was not paid. 8. From the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the two sides, it evinces that the following questions are inter alia germane in the matter: [a] If, in violation of the Notification, KVPs were purchased by Jal Nigam, i.e. an ineligible Corporation / Organisation, from the Postal Department, was the Jal Nigam, which purchased the KVPs, responsible for making deposits contrary to the Notification / rules, or was the Postal Department, which administered the KVPs, responsible for accepting deposits contrary to the Notification / rules, or were both responsible. [b] It being nobody’s case that the principal amount deposited was not to be refunded, would the delay in refund (made on 10.04.2010) attract just and equitable interest (albeit lower than that admissible on the KVPs), and, if so, whether the said interest would be from the dates of (irregular) deposit i.e. from 19.04.2000 and 31.05.2000, or from the dates of maturity i.e. from 19.04.2006 and 31.05.2006. 9. Section 24A of the Act, which deals with ‘Limitation period’, prescribes a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. However, it also provides that a Complaint may be entertained if sufficient cause for not filing the Complaint within the said period of two years is shown to the satisfaction of the Consumer Protection Forum concerned, and allows for condoning the delay for reasons recorded. 10. The Complaint before the State Commission was filed by the Jal Nigam on 24.12.2013. It is noted that multiple litigation in respect of different sets of KVPs was going on between the Jal Nigam and the Postal Department. It is also noted that it is nobody’s case that refund of the principal amount was not to be made. It is further noted that, in the case at hand, the principal amount was deposited on 19.04.2000 and 31.05.2000. The KVPs matured on 19.04.2006 and 31.05.2006. The refund of the principal amount was made on 10.04.2010. Hence, even from the point of view of the Postal Department, till 10.04.2010 it was a continuing wrong, a continuing cause of action. A perusal of the State Commission’s impugned Order shows that the Jal Nigam, a Government Corporation / Organisation, took some time in completing the procedural requirements of competent approval for agitating the matter and for getting a government advocate assigned, which were completed on 11.11.2013. It further shows that the Jal Nigam filed an application under the RTI Act of 2005 to obtain information from the Postal Department, which was replied to by the Postal Department on 20.10.2013, and whereby the Postal Department declined to provide the information asked for. A legal notice was sent by the Jal Nigam to the Postal Department on 01.10.2013, which was not replied to by the Postal Department for about two months. As such, in the totality of the facts and situation enunciated above, sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the instant Complaint on 24.12.2013 is adequately forthcoming. 11. However, notwithstanding the afore, and independent and separate thereof, having regard to the facts and specificities of the case, and to the questions germane in the matter (refer para 8 above also), it is just and appropriate that the Complaint before the forum of original jurisdiction, the State Commission, be comprehensively and holistically examined on merit, on facts and law, with the affording of the due opportunity to both sides, and the delay be condoned. 12. With this brief examination, the delay in filing the instant Complaint before the State Commission is condoned. The impugned Order dated 13.08.2014 of the State Commission is set aside. The State Commission is requested to adjudicate the C.C. No. 199 of 2013 on its merit as per the law. 13. This Commission has consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the matter, or making any critique of the facts and specificities of the matter, or recording any observations or comments on the questions germane in the matter, since the case has as yet to be adjudicated on merit by the forum of original jurisdiction, the State Commission, and this Commission does not in any manner want to colour the vision of the State Commission. 14. Both sides are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.02.2020. 15. The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to both sides and to the State Commission within three days of its pronouncement. | 
