IA/501/2021 (Condonation of Delay)

1.      This is a case of alleged deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (OPs). The Complainant alleged that upon his request, the OPs neither removed the high-tension wires from the spot nor exchanged the plot in question, with some other similarly placed plot, which was allotted vide allotment letter dated 22.08.2016, despite paying Rs.19,98,625/- against the total consideration of Rs.73,50,000/-. However, after a long period of 6 months, the OPs vide office Order dated 30.05.2018 deducted Rs.8,08,830/- of the deposited amount Rs.18,50,625/-, being 10% of the total cost Rs.80,88,302/- towards interest/penalty under Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development, Act, 1995. The balance Rs.10,41,795/- was approved to be refunded to him. Upon his complaint, the State Commission, Punjab, allowed the complaint and vide Order dated 06.11.2019 directed as follows:-

“22. In view of my above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the balance amount of Rs.9,56,830/- along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization; and

ii) to pay Rs.22,000/- as composite compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant as well as litigation cost.”

2.      Being aggrieved, the OPs filed the instant Appeal along with IA/501/2021 seeking condonation for delay of 632 days in filing this First Appeal. According to the Registry, there is a delay of 374 days.

3.      As regards delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo-motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation suspended the period of limitation for filing proceedings before any Courts/ Tribunals or any Authority due to Covid-19 Pandemic from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Limitations would be further extended by 90 days from 01.03.2022, i.e. till 29.05.2022. Since 29.05.2022 is Sunday, the matter filed on 30.05.2022 would be considered to have been filed within limitation.

4.      In the present Appeal, the learned State Commission passed the Impugned Order on 06.11.2019. The limitation for filing of the First Appeal before this Commission is 30 days. However, the calculation for filing the First Appeal would be counted from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Appellant i.e. 11.12.2019. Thus, the limitation for filing the First Appeal lapsed on 10.01.2020 which was well before the onset of the Covid19 Pandemic. Thereafter, the present Appeal has been filed on 18.01.2021 along with Application seeking condonation of delay. There is thus delay of 374 days in filing the present Appeal.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, perused the application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.

6.      The Appellant's counsel has brought out that, upon receiving the impugned judgment from the State Commission, relevant officials of the Estate Office thoroughly examined it along with related documents, considering the complexity of the matter, which involved ongoing litigations concerning the same scheme. Due to the multiple legal proceedings, including one referenced in the impugned order, all relevant records had to be reviewed for a comprehensive understanding. Subsequently, input was sought from various stakeholders within the department, and the matter was presented to senior officials for final decision-making. However, progress was impeded by the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns imposed by the Central and State Governments. The closure of the Appellate Authority's office from 23.03.2020, until May, further delayed proceedings. Even upon reopening, only 50% of the staff could attend initially, and it took time to restore full operational capacity. Consequently, the process could not proceed as intended due to these unforeseen circumstances. He further elaborated that following the Estate Officer's recommendation, a decision was made to file an appeal against the Impugned Order on 30.07.2020. However, due to a surge in COVID-19 cases from June to July, staffing levels were reduced. It wasn't until September that only 50% of staff was allowed to return to the Appellate Authority's office, with full staff capacity restored gradually. Approval for filing the appeal was granted by the Chief Administrator of PUDA on 10.09.2020. Subsequently, the file was forwarded to the office of the Advocate General of Punjab for engaging panel counsel, and the file, along with authorization to engage present counsel, was received on 06.10.2020 & 09.10.2020, respectively. Necessary documents were collected and sent to the Delhi-based counsel by post, arriving on 13.10.2020. The Delhi counsel required the complete case record and additional clarifications, with the draft appeal being prepared based on existing documents. Additional documents were sent to the counsel by 21.12.2020. The draft appeal underwent review by concerned officers, incorporating their comments and inputs, and was sent back to the Counsel for final vetting and approval in the first week of January 2021. The finalized draft was then submitted for signatures on 11.01.2021.

7.      Notwithstanding the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the impugned order placed on record and the acknowledgement thereat by the Appellant himself reveal that the same was obtained by the Complainant on 16.12.2019. Faced with this fact, the learned counsel for the Appellant conceded the delay in filing the Appeal.  Even if the date of receipt of copy of the order is taken on 16.12.2019, the period of limitation for filing of the present Appeal lapsed on 14.01.2020. Also there is no reason mentioned in the Application for causing delay in filing the present Appeal for the period between 15.01.2020 to 14.03.2020 which is well before the suspended period of limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments clarified the expression ‘sufficient cause’ and held that the burden is on the Applicant to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay. A party who has not acted diligently or remained inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. In RB. Ramlingam Vs. RB. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), it was held as under:-

"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.”

9. Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the Applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, has held as under:

“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 condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay 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.”

10. Also, in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court sensitized the Commissions to keep in mind while dealing with such Applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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."

11.    If there is delay, the question of deciding the matter on merit will not arise. In this context, we would like to rely upon the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. M/s Satish Chand Shivhare & Brothers, SLP (Civil) No. 5301 OF 2022, it was held as below:

21. The questions of law purported to be raised in this Special Leave Petition are misconceived. The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant.

22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause ’to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning.

12.    Based on the discussion above, I do not find sufficient grounds to condone the protracted delay in filing the Appeal. The Application for condonation of delay being I.A. No.501/2021 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the instant First Appeal No.55/2021 is also dismissed, being barred by limitation.