JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The first appeal filed by the Bihar State Housing Board, the petitioner, was dismissed as barred by time by the State Commission vide its order dated 17.10.2011.  There was delay of 15 months in filing the said appeal. 

2.      Aggrieved by that order, the revision petition has been filed.  The explanation given by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act before the State Commission was as follows, the order passed by the District Forum was communicated on 25.6.2010, which was received by the petitioner’s counsel and the same was sent to the legal advisor of the Housing Board, who received it on 6.7.2010.  The permission was granted by the Managing Director, Housing Board to file appeal on 14.7.2010.  It was sent to empanelled lawyer of the petitioner on 16.7.2010 but the empanelled lawyer Shri Nawal Kishore  Prasad Singh expressed his inability to appear before the State Commission and thereafter another counsel empanelled for the Housing Board, namely, Rakesh Kumar Singh was handed over the file for drafting of memo of appeal, which was received by Sri Singh on 23.07.2010 but even after several reminders, Sri Singh returned the record with the draft copy of memo of appeal on 16.12.2010.  Thereafter several paraphernalia were observed by the Board officials and ultimately the office had to obtain necessary directions from the Managing Director, Housing Board and after direction of the Managing Director, the appeal was filed on 13.09.2011.  It took 15 months in filing this appeal.  The State Commission did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

3.      The alarm bells should have rung when the case was dismissed on the point of limitation but it did not leave any impact on the petitioner-Bihar State Housing Board.  The filing of this revision petition was further delayed by 55 days.  No application for condonation of delay was filed with the revision petition.

4.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  He argued that in the interest of justice, opportunity of being heard should be granted in favour of the petitioner. 

5.      We find that the State Commission has rightly given the short shrift to this matter.  We are unable to take a different view from the one taken by the State Commission.  State Commission has made a perspicacious decision which cannot be faulted.            The petitioner must show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay.  The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention.  Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005 as quoted by the Apex Court in  Balwant Singh  (Dead) Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors.,   (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided  by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 wherein it was held:                    

                           “The party should show that besides acting bona                         fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]”

6.      The Apex Court in recent authority reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC) 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.”

7.      In other case, titled as “Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr.” [Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012 decided on 21.05.2012], the Bench of this Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, has rejected the explanation that the file was moving from table to table to get the permission to file that appeal.  It was further held that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case of some expert evidence is required to be led then within 150 days.  The said Bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was delayed by 104 days. 

8.      In the celebrated authority reported in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been 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”. 

9.      Again, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the filing of this revision petition was delayed by 55 days.  The silence on the part of the petitioner is pernious.

10.    The attempt to kick against the pricks miserably fails.  The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.