This order shall dispose off application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 16.10.2012, passed by this Commission. Along with it an application seeking condonation of delay of 54 days has also been filed. 2. I have gone through the review application, application for condonation of delay and have perused the record. Before deciding this application it shall be fruitful to narrate the brief history of the present case. 3. Respondent / complainant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short he Act against the petitioner / OP, in 2009 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Respondent was allotted 112 sq. mtr. Plot in Satabdi Nagar Residential Scheme at a price of Rs.50,400/- against which he deposited a total sum of Rs.52,162/- and there was no due towards him. However, respondent was not given the possession of the plot. The petitioner had arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the plot which amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint was contested by the petitioner before the District Forum. 4. District Forum, vide its order dated 2.11.2010 allowed the complaint by passing the following directions :- he Complaint of the complainant against the opposite party is being accepted. The cancellation order as issued by the opposite party on 11.2.2005 is refuted. The opposite party is being directed to give the physical possession of the plot No. B-165, Sector 4 C, measuring 112 sq. meter of Satabdi Nagar, residential scheme within one month from the date of this order and execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant at the same old rate. The opposite party is also directed to pay the interest @15% on the deposits made on different dates till the date on which the last payment had been made and also pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation cost to the complainant. The opposite party is to comply with the order within the stipulated time frame otherwise the complainant would be at liberty to initiate action against the opposite party under section 25/ 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, vide order dated 12.5.2011 and passed the following directions:- he appeal stands dismissed with a direction to the Meerut Development Authority to execute the sale deed of the plot allotted to the complainant within a period of two months and handover possession to him. Need not to say that the complainant will bear the expenditures of the sale deed besides making payment of the freehold charges and other relevant charges on the counts of sewer and water etc. but by no stretch of reasoning he will be asked to pay any kind of interest. The costs shall be easy. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has filed the present revision petition under section 21(b) of the Act. Along with this petition an application seeking condonation of delay of 67 days has been filed. 7. Revision petition came up for hearing before this Commission for the first time on 16.12.2011 and adjournment was sought by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that he is engaged elsewhere. On 16.3.2012, i.e., on the next date of hearing, this Commission passed the following order:- fter hearing him for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a detailed affidavit of a responsible officer of the Authority clarifying the underlying calculations as well as the land rates at the time of original allotment of the plot of land to the respondent/complainant and the final allotment after resolution of the issues relating to land acquisition price. This affidavit be filed within four weeks. Stand over to 5.7.2012 for admission hearing 8. On 5.7.2012 learned counsel for the petitioner sought further time to file the affidavit. In the interest of justice, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file the affidavit subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as adjournment cost which was to be deposited with onsumer Legal Aid Accountof this Commission within four weeks. 9. It is apparent from the record that this cost was not deposited within the specified period and as such petitioner filed an application seeking time to deposit cost. Vide order dated 28.09.2012, petitioner was given a week time to deposit the cost. 10. In spite of order dated 28.09.2012, petitioner still did not deposit the cost. Even thereafter petitioner did not deposit the cost and as such vide order dated 16.10.2012 the revision petition was dismissed. 11. Hence this review application. 12. In this application, it has been stated that delay in depositing the cost was caused inadvertently as the demand draft was first prepared in favour of the Registrar whereas, as per order the same was required to be made to the onsumer Legal Aid Account On 16.10.2012, the counsel for petitioner appearing before this Commission presented the draft of Rs.2,500/- and pleaded that he was not allowed by the Registry to submit the same and if he allowed, he would submit the same on that date itself. It is also stated that as and when directed by this Commission, the petitioner is ready to furnish the detailed affidavit regarding the expenses and cost incurred in procuring and developing the plot in question. 13. The above-noted proceedings of the present case clearly shows that the petitioner has conducted the present proceedings before this Commission in a very casual and careless manner. It is an admitted fact, that order for filing the detailed affidavit was passed as early as on 16.3.2012. Thereafter, petitioner has been given number of opportunities to file the affidavit and for that purpose even adjournment costs were imposed on the petitioner, but till date that affidavit has not been filed on record. Petitioner being a public authority has taken this Commission for a ride and is harassing the complainant being a consumer. After getting two adverse finding from the Fora below, petitioner again acted in a very negligent manner and filed this revision petition, after expiry of the period of limitation. The conduct of the petitioner in this petition clearly goes on to show that petitioner has no intention to comply with the orders passed by the Fora below and is bent upon harassing the complainant / respondent, as petitioner is having large resources at his hand, i.e., it is having a full-fledged legal department and battery of Lawyers to conduct cases on its behalf. It is well settled established from the record that for the delay occasioned in pursuing the present petition, the petitioner has to blame itself. 14. Under these circumstances, there is no error apparent on record, which calls for review of order dated 16.10.2012 passed by this Commission. The present review application is not maintainable on merits and even otherwise, it is barred by limitation. The review application stand dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- for wasting the time of this Commission. 15. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of the onsumer Legal Aid Accountof this Commission alongwith previous adjournment cost, if not deposited, within four weeks failing which it shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realisation. List for compliance on 1.3.2013. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary of the Petitioner-Authority.