1.       This set of 7 Revision Petitions, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Estate Officer and Chief Administrator of Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short “HUDA”), the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, is directed against different orders, all dated 26.08.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660 and 661 of 2015.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed all the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioners, as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

2.       The Appeals had been filed by the Petitioners against the orders, all dated 29.01.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jhajjar, Haryana (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 42, 40, 45, 69, 68, 70 and 71 of 2013.  By the said orders, while accepting the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not providing basic amenities in respect of the plots allotted to them by HUDA, as per their policy, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainants interest @ 9% p.a. on the amounts deposited by them/original allottees, after expiry of three years of the date of allotment, till the date of offer of possession, together with token sums of ₹10,000/-, ₹3,300/- and ₹5,000/- towards mental agony/harassment, fee of Local Commission and litigation expenses respectively, in each of the Complaints.

3.       Since all the Complaints involve common issues/similar facts and both the Forums below have decided the Complaints/Appeals on similar lines, though by different orders, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.  However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 1041 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are also taken from the same.

4.       Vide Memo No. 2579 dated 28.03.2008, plot no. 596, admeasuring 162 sq. mt., in Sector-6, Urban Estate Bahadurgarh at Jhajjar, was allotted by HUDA to one Rajbir Singh. The Complainant in the aforesaid Revision Petition had purchased the said plot from the original allottee and allotment was transferred in her name by HUDA, vide their re-allotment letter dated 10.02.2011.  On payment of a sum of ₹5,36,725/-, vide letter/memo dated 03.02.2012, possession of the plot in question was offered to the Complainant.  At the time of taking possession, the Complainant discovered that basic amenities, including water supply, approach road, electrification etc., were not provided to the said plot. In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint and other Complaints came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for certain reliefs, mentioned in the Complaints.

5.       Upon notice, the Petitioners contested the Complaints by filing their Written Versions.

6.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it by the parties before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaints and issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioners.    

7.       Aggrieved, the Petitioners carried the matter further in their Appeals to the State Commission albeit with a delay of 160 days in filing the same.  However, as noted above, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

8.       Hence, the present Revision Petitions.

9.       It is reported by the Office that all the present Revision Petitions are also barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 834 days in filing the same.  For condonation of delay, identical Applications have been filed by the Petitioners along with the Revision Petitions.  In paragraph-3 thereof, the Petitioners have furnished the following explanation:  

“3.      That after getting certified copy of the impugned Judgment, the concerned officer put up the file to their higher authorities for further legal remedies and under such process the file moved to various officer for getting approval and after proper approval the complete file was sent to the office of Ld. AG for legal opinion and after getting opinion from the office of Ld. AG, matter was marked to the present counsel who in consultation with the officer in charge of the case prepared the present revision petition and filed the same.”

10.     We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the question of delay.         

11.     We are of the opinion that the Petitioners had failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of 160 days in filing Appeals before the State Commission and an inordinate delay of 834 days in filing the present Revision Petitions and, therefore, the Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed on that short ground.  Hence, at the outset, we hold that the decision of the State Commission in not condoning the aforesaid delay does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

12.     Insofar as the explanation furnished for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the present Revision Petitions is concerned, from a bare perusal of certified copy of the impugned order(s), placed on record by the Petitioners, it is evident that “free copy” of the impugned orders was issued/dispatched to Counsel for the Petitioners on 24.09.2015.  Under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the Petitioners were required to file the present Revision Petitions within a period of 90 days, which have been filed with an inordinate delay of 834 days.  The said delay is sought to be explained by the Petitioners on the standard specious plea that because of movement of file from one officer to another for getting approval/legal opinion, including the Advocate General, the said delay has occurred.  While drafting the Applications, seeking condonation of delay, except for mentioning the movement of file to the Advocate General, the Petitioners/their Counsel have very conveniently avoided to mention: (i) the names of the officers to whom the file was marked; (ii) the date-wise details qua the explanation extracted above; (iii) the duration of time, within which the file remained with the said officers; and (iv) if there was negligence in dealing with the file, what action had been taken against the delinquent officer(s), if any.  In the absence of the said details, it can safely be inferred that even after receiving the certified copy of the impugned orders, the Petitioners did not show any sense of urgency in processing the files expeditiously at their end to ensure that the Revision Petitions are filed within time, more pertinently when their Appeals, preferred against the final orders in the Complaints, had been dismissed by the State Commission, inter alia, on the ground of limitation.  Except for the stated bald plea, no other explanation worth the name has been offered by the Petitioners for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay of 834 days in filing the Revision Petitions.  Such casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out any cause, much less a ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of the afore-staed inordinate delay in filing the present Revision Petitions, which, for the reasons indicated above, we are not inclined to condone.  Before parting, we deem it necessary to observe that having regard to the nature of the directions issued by the District Forum, relating to deficiency on the part of HUDA in not providing even the basic facilities in respect of the plots allotted to the Complainants as far back as in the year 2011, and the quantum of the amounts awarded as compensation for the deficiency, instead of challenging the orders passed by the Fora below after a lapse of over two years and wasting public money on litigation and judicial time, HUDA should have gracefully accepted the said orders.     

13.     Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.