1.  This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 02.06.2016 of the State Commission in appeal no. 490 of 2015 arising out of the Order dated 13.02.2015 of the District Commission in complaint no. 143 of 2014.

2.  Heard the learned counsel for the electricity distribution corporation (the petitioner herein) and the complainant in person (the respondent herein) and perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 13.02.2015 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 02.06.2016 of the State Commission and the petition.

The matter relates to disputed electricity bill(s).

The District Commission passed its Order on contest. It partly allowed the complaint and directed the electricity distribution corporation not to recover an amount of Rs. 3,02,003/- (along with any further surcharge/penalty etc. if any levied on this amount) from the complainant which had been raised on account of sundry charges through bill dated 4.8.2014. It also directed the corporation to pay sums of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The corporation’s appeal was dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 02.06.2016.

Both the fora below have undertaken their independent appraisal and arrived at concurrent findings.

The petition before this Commission has been filed with self-admitted delay of 150 days.

3.  Pertinently, vide this Commission’s Order dated 20.09.2019 the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as well as on the ground of unexplained delay of 150 days. The said Order is reproduced below:

Dated : 20^th September, 2019

                                                              ORAL ORDER

This Revision Petition No.658 of 2017 has been filed against the impugned order of the State Commission dated 2.6.2016 on 10.3.2017 with a delay of 150 days. 

            On 26.4.2019, the following order was passed:

     “No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call.  Respondent is represented today by his father Mr. B.D. Arora.  He undertakes to file his letter of authority, within a week.  He submits that a cost of Rs.5,000/-, imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 23.5.2018, has been received.

     It is seen that this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 150 days.  While admitting this revision petition on 28.3.2017, notice of I.A. No.4035 of 2017, an application for condonation of delay, had also been sent to the respondent.  However, thereafter despite fixing 31.01.2018 for hearing the delay application, the matter has not been heard so far. 

     Today also nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner.  In the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to give one last opportunity to the petitioner to argue on the application for condonation of delay.

     List on 20.09.2019 for arguments on the application for condonation of delay.

     It is made clear that if there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the next date of hearing or if the petitioner submits a letter seeking adjournment or if the petitioner sends a proxy counsel seeking adjournment, this matter would be decided ex-parte.

     A copy of this order may be served on the petitioner and petitioner’s counsel.”

Today, even on the second call, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

This revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the lower fora and that too with a delay of 150 days which has not been explained properly nor has the petitioner cared to be represented or to argue his own delay application despite several opportunities given.

In view of above, this revision petition is dismissed both for non-prosecution as well as on the ground that it has been filed with an unexplained delay of 150 days.

4.  However, a restoration application moved on behalf of the corporation was subsequently allowed on 06.12.2021 and the petition was restored to its original number.

5.  Today, the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is being first taken up.

Learned counsel for the corporation submits that the delay may be condoned since sufficient cause to condone the delay has been shown.

The complainant in person submits that the dispute relates to the year 2014 and he got favourable Orders from the District Commission and the State Commission in 2015 and 2016. The petition before this Commission has been kept lingering from 2017 as the corporation has been unnecessarily procrastinating the matter. Earlier the case was even dismissed for non-prosecution and on delay in 2019 but it was then restored in 2021. He is being put to continuous trouble and prejudice for the last about 08 years, his age is above 70 years and it is difficult for him to follow up the case and put up with the harassment any further.

For ready reference, the application for cononation of delay is reproduced below in toto:

1. That the accompanying appeal is being filed in this Hon’ble Court which is likely to be accepted on the grounds taken therein. The grounds taken for the appeal are to be read as integral part of this application.

2. That in order to file the appeal against the impugned order, the matter was to be dealt with at various stages and had to pass through various hands and various departments of the Petitioner. Due to this reason, the appeal could not be filed in time otherwise there was no occasion for the Petitioner to allow the period of limitation to expire.

3. That the appeal is likely to succeed on the grounds being taken therein and would be rendered infructuous if the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal is not condoned. The delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not intentional and has been caused inadvertently due to long official procedure.

PRAYER

It is therefore respectfully prayed that thus application may kindly be accepted and delay of 150 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

A plain reading shows that no attempt to explain the delay cogently or convincingly has been made. The sole ground taken in the application that “the matter was to be dealt with at various stages and had to pass through various hands and various departments of the Petitioner” only points towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, which is illogical and unpersuasive in explaining the delay in filing the petition.

Ordinarily one leans in favour of the defaulting petitioner for the purpose of condoning the delay and prefers to decide the lis on merits rather than rejecting the same at the threshold stage but even a liberal exercise of such kind will require at least some semblance of a plausible explanation being proffered to bridge up the significant gap after which the petition has been filed. Here, but, the ground being offered (by its very articulation) appears to be wholly inadequate. Neither could the learned counsel add anything towards strengthening the ground during the course of his arguments today.

It concomitantly bears emphasis that the complainant has favourable Orders of the two fora below. The right which has accrued to him cannot be made a victim without a just cause after an inordinate efflux of time.

The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment wherever it has been provided.

In the present case one does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The onus of the petitioner to show the factual basis from which may emanate such ground(s) remains undischarged.

6.       The application for condonation of delay is palpably without worth or substance. Sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such there is no hesitation in dismissing the application.

Resultantly the revision stands dismissed on limitation.

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