1.       This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 16.12.2022  in  Appeal No. 1013 of 2014  of the State Commission,  Uttar Pradesh.     

2.       The petition has been filed with a reported delay of 475 days.  As the delay does not appear to be insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

3.       Learned counsel has reiterated the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application.  Submission is that the petitioners acquired belated knowledge of the matter and it came to know about it only when recovery notice was issued.  Submission is that as the erstwhile counsel  had passed away,  another counsel was engaged after the death of the earlier counsel who moved a restoration application which also got dismissed as the State Commission did not have the power to recall and review.  Submission is that this dismissal of restoration application was not conveyed to the petitioners which again contributed to the delay. Contention is that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and so may be absolved.

4.       Record has been perused in the light of submissions made at the bar.

5.       First of all it may be observed that in the ordinary course whenever the aspect of evaluating the sufficiency of cause behind the delayed filing of a given petition or appeal, as the case may be, is involved, it is advisable to adopt a liberal approach and not a pedantic one.  A pragmatic view needs to be adopted as it is found preferable to decide a case on its merits rather than to thwart the same at the threshold on the point of limitation.  But while saying so, it must not be misconstrued to mean that the approach to be adopted can ever be such which may reduce the law on the point of limitation, wherever it is provided, into insignificance as if it is inconsequential and does not signify anything.  The law of limitation wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve which cannot be looked down with irreverence or with indifference.  The Courts, judicial or quasi-judicial as they may be, can never afford to ride roughshod over the solemn provisions of limitation wherever they have been laid down by the Legislature in its wisdom.  It is also to be kept in perspective that the failure to file a petition against a particular order and the failure to challenge the same within the prescribed period of time, often gives rise simultaneously to a right to the other side which accrues.  This is true that if valid reasons come forth and sufficient cause is shown which may go to vindicate the delayed filing of a petition, the same may be accepted and the delay may be condoned by the given Forum.   But this discretion conferred upon any Forum judicial or quasi-judicial as it may be, has to be exercised judiciously and in keeping with the norms.  The exercise of discretion in such matters is not the exercise of any prerogative or privilege.  It is essentially the exercise of a statutory power, granted by the Act, which has to be exercised judiciously and legally both.  The delay of larger periods may be condoned in a given case if sufficient cause may be shown which resulted in the delay.  On the other hand, a lesser period of delay may not be condoned if valid reasons furnishing or showing sufficient cause are not brought forth by the defaulting party.  The onus to show and furnish the necessary factual or circumstantial basis which contributed to the delay, must be shown in order to earn the condonation and this onus is of the defaulting party who seeks such condonation.

6.       When the bench proceeds to evaluate the sufficiency of cause in order to see whether the same goes to vindicate the delay involved in the matter, it finds that the grounds pleaded do not deserve to be called adequate grounds which may constitute sufficient cause.  The impugned Order was passed on 16.12.2022.  Certified copy indicates that the free copy of the same was supplied on 21.12.2022 itself.  It is clearly mentioned in the stamp. 

7.       It may be relevant in this context to mention that as per the Regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 if a Consumer / Party needs a certified copy and applied for the same it may be given on the payment of a nominal fee. But on the subsequently applied and issued certified copy the concerned Commission is required to clearly mention as to when the first / free copy of the impugned Order was dispatched or delivered to the applicant. It may be relevant to extract the Regulation 21 which reads as follows:

21. Certified copy. – (1) A copy of the final order is to be given to the parties free of costs as required under the Act and the rules made thereunder.

(2) In case a party requires an extra copy, it shall be issued to him duly certified by the Registry on a payment of rupees twenty irrespective of number of pages.

(3) A certified copy of an order shall clearly specify the date when free copy was issued, date of application, date when the copy was made ready and the date when it was so delivered to him.

          The statutory purpose which the afore-said regulation goes to serve is that it obviates the possibility of raising the false plea of belated acquisition of knowledge about the impugned Order.  Otherwise anybody can hide behind the false plea that he was never provided with the free copy of the Order. The duplicate certified copy would, whenever it is provided, must therefore contain the date when the earlier free copy was provided.  When we look to the certified copy available on record we find that the free copy had already been supplied on 21.12.2023.  

          In the afore-said circumstances it is clearly demonstrable that the plea of getting belated knowledge is a mendacious plea. 

8.       So far as the restoration application is concerned when a counsel is duly engaged he is supposed to have preliminary knowledge of law at least. Filing a review application or restoration application before a Forum which did not have power to grant such relief is difficult to appreciate. Then again the plea that the counsel did not inform about the dismissal of restoration application also does not appear very impressive and appears to be only a plea for the sake of raising the plea and is more in  the nature of passing the buck. So far as the death of the earlier counsel is concerned, it has been duly considered by the Bench.  The impugned Order is dated 16.12.2022 which relates to the period far beyond the period of exemption granted by Hon’ble Apex Court.  At any rate it is admitted case of the petitioners that after the death of the initial counsel another counsel was subsequently engaged and who had also pursued the matter though woefully enough not in the right direction or at the right forum.  The delay condonation application is reticent regarding the time of death of the initial counsel nor does it speak as to when another counsel was engaged.  At any rate, the delay is quite substantial and huge and cannot be lightly ignored.  There has to be a credible, convincing  and genuine explanation to bridge-up the long hiatus that separates the date of passing of the Order and the date of filing of appeal.  In the totality of the facts and circumstances when the free certified copy had already been provided on 21.12.2022  a fact which is amply born out from the stamp of the certified copy, the pleas which have been raised do not appear to be bona fide or genuine pleas. 

          The onus to show such factual basis from which may have emanated valid reasons to vindicate the delay in filing the revision was on the petitioners.  But the petitioners have obviously failed to discharge that onus to the satisfaction of this Bench.  The Bench does not see even a semblance of good explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is without much worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the  Bench  has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

9.       Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

10.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioners. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.