JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING The present appeal under Section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been filed by the appellant against the order of the State Commission dated 14.11.2018 in Complaint No. 1042 of 2017. IA/7701/2020 is also filed as there is a delay of 296 days in filing the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. Arguments have been heard on the application for condonation of delay. 2. IA/7701/2020 (for condonation of delay) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the free certified copy of the impugned order was not available with the appellants. They had received the copy of the order from the complainant on 23.4.2019, which was examined by the Legal Cell, GMADA on 30.4.2019, who had then sent it to the Estate Officer, seeking certain clarifications and comments. The impugned order thereafter, was examined by the concerned officer of the Estate Office. The clarification was sought subsequently by the Estate Officer from Building Branch on 03.5.2019. The report was also sought from Engineering Branch on 23.5.2019, which was received on 10.7.2019. Again another report was sought from Superintending Engineer on 25.09.2019. Due to outbreak of Covid-19, the Appellant Authority was closed on 23.3.2020 and only 50% of the strength was allowed to attend the office. The Legal Branch submits its report only on 14.7.2020. The file was put up thereafter to Additional Chief Administrator for consideration of the Chief Administrator on 14.7.2020 and permission to file the appeal was obtained. The file thereafter, went to the Advocate General, Punjab for appointment of an Advocate on 05.8.2020 and necessary order was issued on 06.8.2020. Necessary documents were collected by Email on 06.8.2020. The draft of appeal was sent to the appellants for approval and clarification on various dates and were sought finally the approved draft, was received on 24.9.2020. It is submitted that the delay had occurred due to these reasons. While seeking condonation of delay, the reliance has been placed on the findings in the case of Hemlata Verma V. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ICICI, Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019, and it is submitted that in this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had condoned the delay of 207 days. It is further submitted that this Commission had dismissed the appeal of the appellant in Appeal No. 249 of 2018, titled Greater Mohali Area Development authority V. Amanjot Gurbans Singh on account of delay, which was with a delay of 152 days and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued notice. Reliance has also been placed on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1229 of 2019 titled as Estate Officer (H) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Mani Ram Garg, wherein the delay of 81 days was condoned, subject to cost. 3. It is submitted that the delay of 296 days until 15th March, 2020, was for aforesaid reasons. It is prayed that the delay be condoned. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised in the application seeking condonation of delay. 5. The settled proposition of law is that the duty lies upon the person seeking condonation of delay to explain the delay by showing sufficient causes, which prevented it / him from coming to the Commission within the period of limitation. The requirement of the law is that such a person is required to explain the delay of each and every day. It is also a settled proposition of law that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and there is a requirement of showing the reasonable grounds, which were beyond the control of the applicant. In the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that wherein sufficient reasons are not shown for condoning the delay, by the applicant, the Commissions / Courts have no option but to dismiss the application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 6. In the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble Court has laid down the test to be applied by the Commissions / Courts to determine whether the reasons seeking condonation of delay are reasonable or not or whether the person had acted with due diligence and care. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "5. 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.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act, the special nature of the Act shall also be kept in mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. 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 Fora." 8. Also in the case of Post Master Versus Balram Singh Inaram Lodhi III (2018) CPJ 53 NC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that Government Departments are under obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “The government department 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.” 9. In the light of this proposition of law, I have to determine whether the reasons given in the application are reasonable and whether the appellant had acted with due diligence and care. While allowing the application seeking condonation of delay, these parameters have to be applied. It is the requirement under the law that when any final order is passed, the free copies are sent to both the parties. From the contention in the application, it is apparent that the complainant / respondent had received the free copy. The applicant has not averred in the application that it had not received the free copy from the State Commission rather in para 3, has it averred that “the free certified copy of the impugned order is not available with the appellant”. Therefore, it is not the case when for the first time, the applicant has learnt of the passing of the impugned order on receiving the copy of the impugned order on 23.4.2019 from the complainant. The impugned order was passed on 14.11.2018 and the applicant alleges the receipt of the impugned only on 23.4.2019. No explanation has been given in the application as to the status of the free copy of the impugned order which they did not allege in the application, having not received. The only averment regarding free copy is that it is not available with them. In the application they have contended that the file had to go through a number of desks but it seems that during this movement of files, the appellant had lost the free copy of the impugned order that is why it does not contend that it had not received the free the copy of the impugned order but only alleges that it is not available with them. 10. There is a delay of about 296 days and the only reason given is that the delay had occurred due to movement of file from one desk to another between the offices of the applicant, while seeking opinions and getting the draft vetted. From the very nature of the contentions it is apparent that such a delay could have been avoided by the appellant had it acted with due diligence. Being a Government Department and having a team of law officers they cannot plead that they were unaware of the fact that the appeal was needed to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. In the case of Post Master Versus Balram Singh Inaram Lodhi III (2018) CPJ 53 NC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the Government Departments are not absolved from observing the period of limitation when filing appeal or revisions. It cannot be permitted to seek condonation of delay on the grounds that the files kept moving from one Department to another. 11. The appellant has also relied upon the findings of the case of Hemlata (supra). Findings of this case are not relevant. From the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemlata (supra) it is apparent that the delay was condoned for the reasons given by the appellant in its application. The order does not disclose those reasons and it cannot be said that the facts on which the delay was condoned in that case are akin to the facts pleaded in this application while seeking condonation of delay. It also seems that the applicant is in the habit of filing appeal after considerable delays. This fact is clear from the case law relied upon by the applicant, whereby their earlier application seeking condonation of delay in FA/249/2018 titled Greater Mohali Area Development Authority V. Amanjot Gurbans Singh, where the delay was of 152 days, was dismissed by this Commission. No doubt, the appeal has been filed against the said order but the appeal is still pending. This is a clear reflection on the conduct of the appellant that they generally do not act with due diligence and are in the habit of filing the delayed appeals. The learned counsel has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mani Ram (supra), wherein the delay was only of 52 days that was condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the reasons disclosed in the application in that case. 12. In this case the total delay is of 693 days. However, on deducting the period in terms of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motto order in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020. Now counting the number of days from the said receival date till the date of filing, it comes to more than 200 days. The appellant has failed to explain the reasonable reasons for the delay. I find no ground for condoning the delay. The application has no merit and the same is dismissed. FA/888/2020 Since the appeal is barred by limitation, the same is also dismissed. | 
