PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      There is  a delay of 176 days in filing the present Revision Petition.  Petitioner has moved  an application for condonation of delay.  The delay has been explained in Para Nos. 4,5,6,7 & 8 of the application for condonation of delay, which are reproduced here as under:-

“4.         The certified copy of the impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2013 was dispatched by the Registry of the Hon’ble State Commission to the Petitioner on 15.04.2013.  The Petitioner Board thereafter evaluated the impugned judgment and order and tentatively decided to file a revision petition against it.  Since the Board is a government organization, it is bound by certain rules and regulations and has to undergo several formalities before a decision to file a matter is taken including legal opinion from the counsel and opinion of the departments of the Board.  It is submitted that the entire process takes time and therefore on 09.09.2013, after taking a final decision for filing revision petition, the papers were sent to their Advocate in Delhi for preparing revision petition.

5.  The file, which was received in the office of their advocate on 13.09.2013, got unfortunately misplaced in the office of the advocate.  The Petitioner followed the matter by sending reminders dated 08.10.2013 and 12.11.2013.  After the reminder dated 12.11.2013, the file was traced in the office of the advocate.

6.  On perusal of the file, the advocate found that some of the documents were very dim specially the complaint and the memo of appeal and under the rules of the Hon’ble Commission, they had to be filed mandatorily, by e-mail dated 18.11.2013, the advocate requested the Petitioner to send legible copies of the documents.

7.  In the meanwhile the advocate also drafted the revision petition on the basis of the material available and readable and sent a copy of the same to the Petitioner Board on 20.11.2013.

8.   It is submitted that the Petitioner is a government organization and every document sent to the Petitioner has to be carefully scrutinized by various department(s) to see that there is no error in the pleadings.  Therefore, by the very nature of scrutiny than by the Petitioner, the verification and approval of documents take some time.  The finalized drafts were sent to the advocate on 18-12-2013.  However, the same was received by the advocate during the winter vacation of this Hon’ble Commission. Thereafter the modified pleadings were prepared and the matter is being filed in this Hon’ble Commission immediately after the vacation.”

2.      We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner.  It appears that they have not paid heed to the authorities of the Apex Court.  The affidavit of Advocate, the letters to him did not see the light of the day.  The day to day delay was not explained. The case is barred by time.  This view finds support from the following authorities.

3.      In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.”

4.      Similar view was taken in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC),  Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

5.      The departmental and procedural delays cannot be considered for condonation of delay.  The case is dismissed, as being barred by time.