This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Regional Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Bareilly against the order dated 16.03.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.A-621 of 2000.

2.      Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum passed the following order on 08.02.2000:-

“The OP No.2 is hereby directed to declare the result of the complainant forthwith that is with in maximum of 7 days of this order and also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss to the complainant within 30 days and Rs.350/- as cost of the suit.  OP No.1 & 3 are hereby discharged.”

3.      The petitioner Board preferred an appeal before the State Commission and vide interim order dated 09.05.2000 the State Commission asked the Board to declare the result of the respondent complainant and consequently the petitioner Board declared the result of the respondent complainant within the time granted by the State Commission. The compliance was submitted before the State Commission then the case proceeded only for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- that was ordered by the District Forum to be given to the complainant. There were many dates in between when the matter was listed, however, the appeal was finally dismissed in default on 16.03.2011. The petitioner Board filed application for restoring the appeal and for setting aside the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal in default. The State Commission dismissed this application vide its order dated 16.3.2011  by recording that State Commission does not have any power to review its own order.

4.      Hence the present revision petition.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel stated that as the State Commission does not have power to review its own order, hence the present revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel stated that the delay has been caused by time taken in the official decision making to file the present revision petition. It was further stated that the delay is not deliberate as well as unintentional and no prejudice will be caused to the respondent complainant if the matter is decided on merits.

6.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record.  First of all, it is seen that there is a delay of more than 5 years in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay brings out the following reason for delay:-

“a.     That the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Lucknow vide order dated 16.03.2011 for default and non prosecution.

b.       That immediately, the petitioner filed a restoration petition bearing no.127/2011 against the impugned order before the Hon’ble State Commission, Lucknow.

c.       That the restoration petition bearing no.127/2011 was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Lucknow vide order dated 13.09.2013 which was received by the petitioner on 31.10.2014 being non maintainable as the Hon’ble State Commission has no power to recall its own order.

d.       That the petitioner was diligently and with bonafide intention pursuing his case before the Hon’ble State Commission but the same was only dismissed on 31.10.2014.  It is submitted that the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the case for the restoration before the Hon’ble State Commission and the benefit of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ought to be provided to the petitioner.

e.       That thereafter, due to severe shortage of staff and over burdening of the work with the petitioner, the petitioner could not file the present revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission within time.”

7.      From the application for condonation of delay it is seen that the grounds taken are only administrative in nature and are such which were are not beyond the control of the petitioner.  Particularly, when the application for restoring the appeal was dismissed on 13.09.2013 which is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 31.10.2014 and therefore, no explanation has been given beyond the period 31.10.2014 till filing of the revision petition on 16.02.2018.  The only explanation has been given that there was shortage of staff and therefore, the revision petition could not be filed in time.  It seems that the petitioner has not given any priority to the legal cases going on against the petitioner and that is why this situation has arisen.  Shortage of staff cannot be taken as ground for not filing the revision petition in time.  Then it is not a question of short delay in filing the revision petition.  There is a delay of more than five years in filing the revision petition. 

8.      Special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, Consumer Protection Rules 1987 and Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 for speedy disposal of consumer disputes.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down 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.   Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed;

“4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).

  5.    In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.         

6.      Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay.”

10.    In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed:-

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition”.

 11.   The above authoritative judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are equally applicable in the present case and clearly negligence and deliberate inaction are imputable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition. No sufficient cause has been shown for condoning such huge delay of about 5 years in filing the present revision petition. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the present revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition No.606 of 2018 is also dismissed at the admission stage.