PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner heard.  We requested the learned counsel that first of all he should argue on the delay application but he insisted and consumed the precious time of this Commission on the merits of this case.  He contended that in order to explain the delay, he must go through the judgments in question.  He drew our attention towards para No. 4 of the judgments, rules and regulations but we are of the considered view that this is of no use.  First of all we have to decide the question of limitation.  Question of merits will pale into insignificance, if we come to the conclusion that the Revision petitions are barred by time. 

2.      This order shall decide the above three connected revision petitions.  There is delay of 544 days each in filing the Revision Petitions.  This order shall decide all the three cases because the applications for  condonation of delay are similar.  It is against the common order.  The petitioner has explained the delay in its applications for condonation of delay moved before this Commission.  The delay has been explained in Para No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9&10, which are reproduced here as under:-

“2.    That the order was passed by the Ld. State Commission on 17.09.2012 and certified copy of the same was received by the petitioner on 04.10.2012.  Thereafter, after seeking approval of Competent Authority, the case file was sent to the Counsel in Delhi for opinion as to whether the impugned order dated 17.09.2012 passed by Hon’ble State Commission can be assailed and if so on what grounds.  The matter took substantial time as it went to various departments for costing of flats, breakup, land acquisition cost, construction cost, land enhancement cost, land development cost etc.  The matter was referred to the legal department which opined that the order of the District Forum is erroneous in law and facts.  Hence, it advised the concerned office of petitioner to submit the documents regarding the cases, to its counsel viz. Sh. Sushil Dutt  Salwan.  The matter took considerable time and was sent to the Delhi counsel on or about end of April 2013.

3.      On the basis of the limited record made available to the Petitioner’s Counsel in Delhi, the Counsel vide his letter dated 08.05.2013 opined that it is not a fit case for filing of revision as the Petitioner’s Counsel  had given a concession before the Hon’ble State Commission about costing.  Accordingly, the case file was returned to the department.

4.      That as per telephonic conversation on 29.06.2013 with the Chief Legal Officer of the petitioner department, the counsel was informed that though the entire record was furnished to the previous counsel, however, important and crucial documents were not referred to by the Counsel or the State Commission and therefore, called up its Counsel on basis of the set of documents, now furnished, should revisit the issue and review his opinion.  It was accordingly decided by petitioner that the entire record of the case be sent and that the Counsel should reconsider his opinion and suggest the course of action for seeking remedy against the impugned order.

5.      That since several documents were in Hindi, accordingly they were returned to the Petitioner by the Counsel for translation.  Unable to get them translated due to legal terminologies, the Department returned the file to the Counsel at Delhi for translation from translators at the Supreme Court or High Court.

6.      That on or about July-August, 2013, the Counsel acquired additional space for his office in the same building where his present office is located and in the process of shifting and re-establishing his office, the records of the present petition inadvertently got mixed with the disposed of cases of petitioner, being handled by the counsel, and which were sent back to the department for their records.

7.      That in the meantime, the Counsel kept on searching for the missing files of this case.  The Counsel did not realize that the files, by mistake, had been sent back to department.

8.      That in January 2014, after the State Election in the State of Madhya Pradesh got over and on resuming duties, the clerical staff of petitioner while keeping the files in the record room, came across the department files of the present case and noticed that a decision was taken to prefer a Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.  The clerk placed the file before the concerned officer, who spoke to the counsel and thereafter sent the records to the Counsel with a request to do the needful.

9.      That on revisiting the records of the case, it was noticed that the counsels conducting the case before the State Commission had failed to mention the rules as laid down in the brochure, regarding allotment of plots as well as the Madhya Pradesh Housing Rules, regarding enhancement of cost, before the District Forum and the State Commission and therefore, the same could not be considered by either of the Foras, while passing the respective order.

10.    That after detailed discussion with the officials of the petitioner Board, the Counsel was of the opinion that Revision Petition against the order dated 17.09.2012 of the Ld. State Commission should be filed at the earliest while referring to the rules mentioned in the advertisement and Madhya Pradesh Housing Rules.  An approval was accorded to the Counsel in May 2014 and by this time all relevant documents were got transferred.”

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that this case pertains to the concession given by an advocate.  It will provide an irregular precedent if the petition in question is not allowed.  He has also invited our attention towards various authorities reported in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst Katiji & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353 and para Nos. 5 & 6 of the authority reported in Kripal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 2547.  He has invited our attention towards another authority of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1226 of 2009 dated 18.06.2013 titled as Balram Upadhyay Vs. Chairman M.P. Housing Board. 

4.      All these arguments have left no impression upon us.  There is a huge delay in filing the Revision Petition.  Day to day delay was never explained.  If one person is serious about the translation, it can be done in a jiffy in a day or two.  The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act.  There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. 

5.      It must be borne in mind that the procedure under C.P.Act is summary procedure.  The Act itself fixes time for disposal of a case.  The Apex Court in a case under the C.P.Act itself, in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “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”. 

6.      Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

7.      In a recent authority, the Apex Court in the case titled as, Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045, was pleased to hold:

                            “13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

                              Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the  ground of delay.”

8.   Consequently, we dismiss the Revision Petitions with costs of       Rs. 10,000/- in each of the case, which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under Section 12 (3) read with Rule 10(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by way of demand draft in favour of P.A.O., Ministry of Consumer Affairs, payable at New Delhi, within one month from today, failing which, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its realization and the Law will take its own course.  Learned Registrar of this Commission shall see compliance of the order u/s 25 of the C.P. Act.

9.   In order to make the procedure easy, the petitioner is directed to deposit the demand draft with the Registrar of this Commission, who will transmit the same with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.

10.   As prayed, the observation made by the Fora below will not be taken as precedent in other cases.