1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 12.03.2018 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh in FA No. 222 of 2005.  The Revision Petition has been filed with a   delay   of 1669 days.  An IA No. 4536 of 2023 dated 27.02.2023 has been filed seeking condonation of delay.       In the said IA, following reasons for delay / grounds for condonation have been mentioned :

1. The file pertaining to the subject matter was missing in the office of Petitioner and after tracing the same, permission was sought to file the revision and documents of the case were issued for filing.
2. Erroneously, the RP No. 172 of 2019 was filed against the order dated 05.07.2018 in MA/212/2018 in  Appeal No. 222/2005 whereby the State Commission dismissed the application for restoration of appeal
3. The Petitioner challenged the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by this Commission in RP No. 172 of 2019 by way of filing SLP ( C ) No. 1725 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the said SLP.
4. Petitioner after perusal of record revealed that order dated 06.10.2018 as mentioned in order dated 08.01.2020 in RP No. 172 of 2019 is incorrect due to typographical error / mistake and correct date is 12.03.2018 and instructed the counsel for the Petitioner to move an application for correction of order dated 08.01.2020.  Thereafter, an application being MA No. 60 of 2023 I RP No. 172 of 2019 was filed before this Commission.
5. Vide order dated 16.02.2023 this Commission allowed the said application being MA No. 60 of 2023 in RP No. 172 of 2019 and corrected the order to 12.03.2018 instead of 06.10.2018.
6. Thereafter, counsel for the Petitioner received the vakalatnama alongwith some papers and asked for complete file. 
7. It took some time for carrying out English translation of the documents and drafting the petition and also that requisite affidavits were not sent.

2.      We have carefully gone through the reasons for delay / grounds for condonation mentioned in IA No. 4536 of 2023 as well as those adduced during the hearing. The reason for delay / grounds for condonation are not found convincing.   Even no period of delay has been mentioned in the application.  The same has been left blank.

3.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, after taking note of various authorities/earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, culled out broad principles for considering the condonation of delay applications and also added few more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario.  Relevant paras of these are reproduced below:-

“15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

                             x x x x

ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

x x x x

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

x x x x

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle

cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.

16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:

                             x x x x

c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”

4.      In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.  [(2012) 3 SCC 563], Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of condoning the delay on the part of office of the Chief Post Master General, observed

“12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

       Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

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.”

5.      In Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 321], Hon’ble Supreme Court observed,

• 25. Much later, in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy this court referred to a large number of previous judgments, and observed that adoption of a strict standard of proof sometimes fails to protect public justice and it may result in public mischief. Other decisions have highlighted that there cannot be a universal formula to judge whether sufficient cause has, or has not been shown and the exercise is necessarily fact specific; in Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh, the court held:

“16. While considering [an] application for condonation of delay no straitjacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not.”

26. The court also emphasized that each case has to be balanced on the basis of its facts and the surrounding circumstances in which the parties act and behave.”

6.        In view of the foregoing, we find that sufficient and good grounds have not been made out by the Petitioner in the instant case for condonation of delay of 1669 days.  Accordingly, IA No. 4536 of 2023 is rejected.  Consequently, Revision Petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.