MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Petitioner, Opposite Party in the original Complaint, has challenged the order dated 21.12.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Application No.2229 of 2016 in First Appeal No.903 of 2016. 2. By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Miscellaneous Application No.2229 of 2016 seeking condonation of 124 days in filing of the Appeal and thereby dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 21.04.2016 of the District Consumer -2- Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.569 of 2015, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant was an allottee of Type III residential apartment in Mohali in a draw of lot. He made the payments. However, due to some financial difficulties, he surrendered the allotment of the apartment. Thereafter, Petitioner had refunded an amount of ₹11,44,199/- to the Respondent/Complainant vide cheque dated 23.07.2015. The Complainant had alleged that the said refund was deficient and filed the Complaint before the District Forum. 4. After going through the evidence produced on record, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to refund a sum of ₹7,18,901/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 23.07.2015 till actual payment and also awarded compensation of ₹25,000/-. 5. Petitioner challenged the said order in Appeal before the State Commission. The said Appeal was filed with a delay of 124 days. Along with the Appeal, Application No.2229 of 2016 seeking condonation of delay was filed. The reasons given in the Application are as follows: “3. That certified copy of the orders of Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar was received in the office of the applicant on 01.07.2016. The orders of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar were examined and thereafter marked to Legal Cell on 29.09.2016 for filing appeal. Thereafter, upon examining the relevant record on 04.10.2016, the said file was put up by the officials of Legal Branch to the higher authorities of GMADA for taking the approval for filing the appeal against the order dated 21.04.2016 before this Hon’ble Commission. -3- 4. That on 20.10.2016 the Chief Administrator, GMADA had given the approval for filing appeal against the orders dated 21.04.2016 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar and also Counsel on legal panel, Sh.Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate was engaged to file appeal in the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab and accordingly, all relevant record was sent to the panel counsel on 25.10.2016 for drafting the appeal. 5. That thereafter, the panel counsel drafted the appeal and sent the same to Legal Cell on 31.10.2016 and after vetting the draft of appeal, the Legal Cell sent the draft of appeal to the applicant on 04.11.2016 for verification of facts and signature. Thereafter, on 25.11.2016 the file was marked to Legal Branch for necessary amendments in the draft, which was finally signed on 29.11.2016 & hence this appeal is being filed today. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and unintentional and because of dealing with case file at different official levels. Moreover the Applicant has good case on merits.” 6. The State Commission in the impugned order did not find the reasons given in the Appeal sufficient to condone the delay. 7. While challenging the impugned order, it is argued that the State Commission has erred in not relying on the affidavit of Mahesh Bansal, Estate Officer because he is the one who was in-charge of everything and therefore, his affidavit ought to have been considered. It is submitted that the affidavit clearly lays down the reasons for condonation. Since it is a Government Department, it moves with its own speed and under these circumstances, the delay ought to have been condoned. It is further argued that the Petitioner has a good case on merits and its right be not curtailed by dismissal of the Appeal on technical ground. 8. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel and also the material on record. The grounds given by the Petitioner in their -4- Application seeking condonation of delay and which are reproduced above, are not convincing and is not sufficient explanation for delay. This also shows that the Petitioner Department has acted in a very causal manner with disregard to the law of limitation pertaining to filing of Appeals and Revision Petitions. 9. There is no doubt that the matter relating to the delay in filing Revision Petitions and Appeals has to be construed in liberal manner but where the delay is unexplained and is not convincing and no sufficient cause is shown, the courts are justified in rejecting the Appeals/Revision Petitions. In “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of condonation of delay has observed 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 discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation 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. The Court in another case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), has stated that court has to -5- apply the basic test while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay, whether the Petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence or not. The court has 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.” 11. While dealing with the matters under the Act, it has been held in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the special period of limitation prescribed therein. The 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 Fora." 12. There is no dispute that the Petitioner is a Public Undertaking. It is expected from a Public Undertaking to follow and honour the law in its letter and spirit and they are under special obligations to observe the law framed by the Government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” as under: -6- “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.’ 13. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the Courts are not given unhampered and untampered powers to condone the delays. Rather the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly ascertained that it is in the discretion of the court to condone the delay even if sufficient reasons are there. There is nothing on record to show that there is a bonafide effort on the part of the Petitioner to avoid such delays. The matter was kept pending for months. The Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General’s case (supra) has clearly observed that “The Government Departments are under a special obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment and condonation of delay is exception and should not be used as an undue benefit for the Government Departments.” In view of the settled preposition of law, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. | 
