PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Arguments from the counsel for the petitioners heard. There is delay of 120 days in filing this Revision Petition. Petitioners have moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in Para No. 2 of the application, which reads as follows:- “2. That the petitioner authority received the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 08.03.2013 and after receipt of the order in the office of the Estate Officer HUDA Rewari the matter was in process for filing the revision petition. The whole process was time consuming and the competent authority decided to challenge the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission by way of filing the revision petition. The delay in filing the revision petition neither intentional nor willful but due to the above said reasons.” 2. This only goes to show that there was departmental and procedural delay. The Apex Court has already held that these are not good grounds for condonation of delay. It must be mentioned here that Consumer Protection Act prescribes a summary procedure and mentions its own limitation. The Fora are directed to decide the cases in 180 days and Revision Petitions and Appeals are to be decided within 90 days. There is a huge delay in filing this revision petition. The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view. 3. 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”. 4. The Apex court in a recent authority reported in Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012 in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, 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. 5. Similar view was taken in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.07.2010 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221. 6. The case is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground. 7. Now I turn to the merits of this case. The State Commission was pleased to hold” “Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the observations made by the District Forum, as mentioned above, we are of the view that it is appellants-opposite parties who have delivered the possession of the plot in question to the complainant after a period of more than 9 years despite the fact that the complainant has deposited a huge amount with them and further failed to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant and, thus, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands proved on the record. The District Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case has rightly accepted the complaint and issued directions to the opposite parties, as mentioned above.” 8. No grounds. Dismissed. | 
