1. The Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Bihar state Electricity Board, before this Commission. The Petition is filed against the impugned order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna, (in short, tate Commission in Appeal No. 66/2002. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Begusarai, Bihar (in short, istrict Forum in Complaint Case No. 29/1999. 2. Brief facts of this case ; complainant Smt. Gayatri Devi, who was running her flour Mill at Begusarai, obtained electrical connection from the OP- Bihar State Electricity Board, under minimum guarantee scheme. Accordingly, it was an obligation of Board to supply electricity for a particular period of time without any break, but the Board failed to supply continued electricity and therefore, the Board is not legally authorized to charge electrical consumption bill on the basis of minimum guarantee tariff. But officials of the OP had issued inflated amount of the bills, on the basis of minimum guarantee charges, as well as in respect of fuel charges, which were not permissible under the law. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service the complainant filed a complaint before District Forum. 3. The District Forum after recording the evidence and on verification of several documents, concluded that the transformer was defective which had not been supplying electricity regularly, the bill was for the energy charge for a period commencing from 1996 to 1998. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to provide revised electric bills to the Complainant for actual consumption and the fuel surcharge is also to be revised on the basis of Minimum Guarantee Charges. The fuel surcharge is also to be revised on the basis of actual consumption charges and that as per the revised electric bill, the line should be restored immediately. 4. Against the order of District Forum, OP preferred an appeal No. 66 of 2002 before State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission , OP filed this revision petition. 6. There is a delay of 92 days, in filling this Revision Petition. The Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay and explained the reasons for the delay, as follows: 1. he receipt of the copy of the impugned order was not brought to the knowledge of the official concerned of the Revision Petitioner who on account of being on leave during the time period when a copy of the impugned order was received and thereafter, could not bona fide takes necessary action of time. 2. Subsequently the Counsel for Revision Petitioner in bona fide belief that the copy of the impugned order was yet to be received by the Revision Petitioner applied for the same and received the same on 07.05.2013. 3. Upon receipt of the copy of the impugned order, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner came to know that a copy of the Order had already been sent directly to the office of the Revision Petitioner on 03.04.2013. We are not satisfied with such vague and evasive reasons for such huge delay in filing this Revision Petition. It is well settled by various judgments of Honle Supreme Court and this Commission that the expression ufficient causecannot 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. In the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC), Honle Supreme Court was pleased to hold: 3. 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. We also, place reliance upon the following judgments:- Anshul Aggarwal V. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)-I (2009) SLT 701-2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal and Others V. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361. Furthermore, the C.P. Act envisages summary procedure where special period is mentioned for disposing of appeals and revision petitions. This Commission cannot adopt excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of the C.P. Act. 7. We now, assess the merits. We have perused the evidence on record and findings of both fora below. The Complainant approached the Chairman of the electricity board, and the local officials of the board at Begusarai. But, on 08.12.1999, OP disconnected electricity line and meter was also taken away by the officials of the Board, on 01.02.2000. There was consumption of 236 and 584 units for the Month of October and November, 1999, respectively, but OP supplied bill under minimum guarantee formula for 700 units, for each month. 8. We further place reliance on the judgments of the Honle Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 2247 of 2001 in the case of M/S K.D. Industries, etc., v/s Bihar State Electricity Board and M/S Bajaj Petro Impex (P) Ltd. (2001) 4 SCC 210, which are not applicable to this case. 9. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Patna High Court Division Bench in similar case, reported in M/s Pulak Enterprises 2001 (3) PLJR,552, wherein it held; lectricity (Supply) Act, 1948-Section 49 Clause 16.10 of tariff Notification fixing rate of fuel surcharge under clause 16.10 is different from fixing the tariff under section 49- even though fuel surcharge do not stand on part though rates of consumption charges are based on objective materials, there is enough scope for flexibility in fixing the rates fixation of fuel surcharge involves arithmetical accounting and there is no scope for exercise of any discretion of flexibility. 10. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the both fora below. The instant Revision Petition is devoid of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits. No order as to costs.