PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These revision petitions arise out of common order of the State Commission involving similar question; hence, decided by common order. 2. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench No. 3 Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1579/2010 Janak Singh Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Cross Appeal No. 2019/2010 Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Janak Singh & Ors., Appeal No. 1580/2010 Dilip Singh Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Cross Appeal No. 2017/2010 Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dilip Singh & Ors. and Appeal No. 1586/2010 Dalpat Singh Vs. Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Cross Appeal No. 2018/2010 Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Dalpat Singh & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeals of the petitioners, allowed appeal of respondent and modified order of District Forum partly allowing complaint. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Colonisation Department of OP/petitioner allotted land bearing Murabba No. 24/52 measuring 24 Bigha 5 Biswa to complainant/respondent Dalpat Singh, land bearing Murabba NO. 44/53 measuring 25 Bigha to complainant/respondent Dalip Singh, land bearing Murabba No. 44/49 measuring 25 Bigha to Janak Singh situated in Chak No. 25 T.B.M. After allotment of land, complainants came to know that there was no source of irrigation available for the land, no construction of Khals (drains); hence, prayed for exchange of land. As their request was not accepted, alleging deficiency on the part of OPs/Petitioners, complainants filed complaints before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaints are time barred and remedy lies with the Civil Court and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties vide orders dated 26.3.2009 and 24.4.2009 allowed complaints and directed OP to return the amounts deposited by complainants with interest. Complainants filed appeal against aforesaid orders and learned State Commission vide order dated 29.4.2010 remanded the matter back to learned District Forum with direction to implead the Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department as a party. Learned District Forum, after impleading Executive Engineer as a party again vide order dated 21.7.2010 directed OP to return the amount along with interest. Complainants as well as OPs filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeals of petitioner and partly allowed appeals of respondent and observed that as proceedings regarding exchange of land is pending in the Colonisation Department on which no order has been passed directed Colonisation Department to pass proper order with regard to proposals relating to exchange of land against which, these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of 140 days delay. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that delay in filing revision petitions may be condoned as delay occurred in forming opinion for filing revision petitions and seeking instructions. 6. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the application for condonation of delay run as under: . That the certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 31.5.2012 and was thereafter obtained on 6.6.2012. 3. That after passing of the impugned order, opinion was sought in the matter for filing revision petition before this Honle Commission. After forming opinion for filing the revision petition, instructions were issued on 11.10.2012 for filing revision petitions. 4. That officer in charge was appointed and the officer in charge contacted the office of the counsel with the records of the case in the first week of December, 2012. The revision petition was prepared. The officer in charge was requested to provide the copy of the appeal filed by the complainant. 5. That thereafter the order of the District Commission and State Commission and other annexures were translated which took some time and thereafter the present revision petition is being filed without any further delay 7. Perusal of aforesaid application reveals that copy of the order was obtained by the petitioners on 6.6.2012, whereas instructions for filing revision petitions were given on 11.10.2012, after more than 4 months. Not only this, officer in charge contacted Counsel in the first week of December, 2012 meaning thereby, no steps were taken by officer in charge for preparation of revision petitions for 1month. Not only this, revision petitions were filed on 21.1.2013 meaning thereby, after 1month of contacting with the Counsel. Apparently, no reasonable explanation has been given for inordinate delay of 140 days in filing revision petitions and application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of following judgments rendered by the Honle Apex Court. 8. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: e 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. 9. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; t 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. 10. Honle Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; e have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. 11. Honle Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments. 12. Honle Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: t 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 Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 140 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 13. As far merits of the case are concerned, learned State Commission has directed Colonisation Department to dispose of proceedings regarding exchange of land pending before it. Learned State Commission has nowhere directed OP to exchange allotted land by irrigated land. 14. Frankly speaking, instead of filing revisions, petitioners should have decided proceedings regarding exchange of land and in case of any grievance from the order of Colonisation Department, appropriate authorities should have been approached for redressal of grievance and on this count also revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 15. Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed at admission stage as time barred with no order as to costs. 16. Colonisation Department is directed to dispose of proceedings within a period of 3 months from today. Observations in State Commission order will not influence Colonisation Department while deciding proceedings. Contempt proceedings drawn by complainant against Respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed for next 3 months.