After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this revision petition was dismissed today, for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: 2. The revision petition, which challenges the order dated 18.03.2008 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, he State Commission in Appeal no. 2001 of 1998, has been filed after a delay of 1218 days. The following has been stated in the application for condonation of delay: . That the petitioner has filed the accompanying petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, in case titled Mala Sharma vs GDA for review of order dated 18.03.2008. 2. That the order to be review was passed ex parte and the petitioner only came to know about the same under the RTI Act information received vide letter dated 27.07.2011. Hence, there is a delay in filing the petitioner. 3. That the delay is neither intention nor deliberate but due to the above reason. 3. It is clear from this application that no attempt has been made by the petitioner to clarify the reasons why she could did not take any action to either pursue the respondent for compliance of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (in short, he District Forum or to seek execution thereof, if she did not know about the appeal filed by the respondent (Ghaziabad Development Authority GDA). If the petitioner is to be believed, it would seem that she remained inactive in seeking enforcement of the order of the District Forum in her favour from 1998 till, for some unexplained reason, she suddenly thought it fit to approach the State Commission for information under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding the GDA appeal. Moreover, the State Commission, after perusing the record, came to the conclusion that a cheque dated 17.11.1998 for Rs.59,657/- had been sent by the GDA to the petitioner in satisfaction of the District Forum order. In the revision petition, the petitioner does not deny the above-mentioned finding of fact by the State Commission. In other words, it has to be held that the petitioner received this payment. Now, the said amount included interest at a rate lower than what had been awarded by the District Forum and the petitioner was aggrieved, she would surely have filed an appeal to the State Commission on this ground alone. This is also not the situation in this case. So, the inescapable conclusion is that she accepted the payment way back in 1998 without demur, though the GDA paid interest at a lower rate and went up in appeal against the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum. 4. Therefore, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, as can be ascertained from the revision petition and the documents produced by the petitioner, we came to the view the petitioner had failed miserably to show, for this inordinate delay in filing the revision petition, any cuase which can be considered even remotely ufficientfor condonation, under regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. 5. As a result, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and with that, the revision petition too.