This Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by Rajasthan Housing Board (for short “the Housing Board”), questioning the correctness of order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”), upholding order dated 16.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Camp, Jaipur (for short “the District Forum”).  The District Forum, while allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant, had directed the Housing Board to allot an independent HIG house to the complainant under its Self-financing Scheme at the current price, in place of an MIGB flat allotted to him on 15.6.1996, and issue allotment letter for the same.   Housing Board was also directed to pay a sum of `20,000/- as compensation for mental, physical and financial harassment and `1,000/- as costs.

          It is pointed out by the office that the revision petition is barred by limitation by 265 days.  An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed, wherein it is stated that the delay occurred in obtaining the legal opinion and translation of the orders of the District Forum and State Commission.  Para-3 and 4 of the application read as follows :

               “3. That legal opinion was sought in the matter which was received vide letter dated 18.3.2013.  That thereafter decision was taken to approach this Hon’ble Commission and instructions were issued for filing revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission.

               4. That thereafter the officer-in-charge contacted the office of the counsel on 11.2.2014, the revision petition was drafter and the orders of the District Commission and State Commission were translated which took some time and thereafter the present revision petition is being filed without any further delay.”

          We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay.  In our view, the explanation is utterly vague and shows culpable negligence on the part of the officials of the Housing Board in prosecuting the case.  It is manifest from the explanation itself that the concerned official took almost one year in taking further action in the matter after receiving legal opinion on 18.3.2013.  The petitioner Housing Board has failed to make out a sufficient cause for condoning the aforesaid delay.   Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578, to the effect that entertainment of highly belated petitions defeats the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, we are of the opinion that an inordinate delay of 265 days in filing of this revision petition for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, cannot be condoned.  It is also pertinent to note that the complaint under the Act, giving rise to the present Revision Petition, was filed sometime in the year 2007. Accordingly, we decline to condone the said delay and dismiss the Revision Petition as barred by limitation.