1.       This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Haryana Urban Development Authority (“HUDA” for short) and its Estate Officer, Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, is directed against the order dated 09.12.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 84 of 2015.  By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 17.12.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Panchkula (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 118 of 2014, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal/Complaint, and directed HUDA to pay to the Complainants a sum of ₹2,54,000/-, along with interest @ 9% from the date of the filing of the Complaint till realization, as also further sums of ₹11,000/- and ₹5,500/- as compensation for mental/physical harassment and litigation expenses respectively.  In the first instance, while coming to the conclusion that the Complainants had failed to explain that no instalment was due and HUDA had wrongly adjusted the amount paid by them, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint.

2.       Being an allottee of the plot in question, viz. Plot No.2, Sector-31, Urban Estate, Panchkula, admeasuring 300 sq. mt., allotted by HUDA, one Gopal Sethi had sold the said plot to the Complainants.  The said plot was re-allotted by HUDA in the name of the Complainants, vide their letter dated 01.01.2008.  Having paid the entire amount, when the Complainants requested HUDA to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC), they were informed that there was failure on their part in not taking possession of the plot within three years from date of the allotment and hence they were liable to pay a sum of ₹2,14,550/- as penalty.  Though the Complainants had not received any letter, offering possession, from HUDA, yet, in order to avoid resumption of the said plot, they paid the said amount on 31.12.2013, upon which HUDA issued the Possession Certificate and NOC on 15.01.2014 and 06.02.2014 respectively.  By a query raised under Right to Information Act from HUDA, the Complainants came to know that there was cutting/manipulation in the dates in the possession letter, in as much as the letter was shown to have been issued on 26.08.2010.  In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for a direction to HUDA to refund to the Complainants the aforesaid amount with interest @ 18% p.a. from 31.12.2013, the date of actual payment, till realization, as also certain other reliefs as mentioned in the Complaint.

3.       Upon contest and appreciation of the evidence adduced before it by the parties, the District Forum, as noted above, dismissed the Complaint. 

4.       Aggrieved, the Complainants carried the matter further in their Appeal to the State Commission, which has overturned the order passed by the District Forum, issuing the aforesaid directions to HUDA. 

5.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.

6.       It is reported by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, in as much as there is a delay of 99 days in filing the same.  An Application, seeking condonation of the said delay, has also been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraph-2 thereof, HUDA has furnished the following explanation for the delay:   

“2.      That the impugned order was passed on 09.12.2016 by this Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana.  Certified copy of order was received in this office on 20.02.2017 through the Advocate.  The file of the case was put up on 01.03.2017 and was submitted by the record keeper to the concerned assistant.  The file was sent to the legal cell on 03.03.2017.  Legal Cell opined on 07.03.2017 that it is a fit case for filing of Revision Petition and marked to Estate Officer, but the file got misplaced from the record and on 19.04.2017 the same was found.  On 19.04.2017 Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula had sent the file to Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for approval.  The Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula approved the same and sent the file to Advocate General on 20.04.2017 for engagement of the counsel.  The Advocate General, Haryana had engaged Sh. Shreshth Jain, Advocate to file RP and file was received back on 27.04.2017.  Engagement letter, power of attorney and record were sent to the counsel through special messenger on 12.05.2017.”   

(underlined for emphasis)

7.       We have heard learned Counsel for HUDA on the question of delay.          

8.       It is trite law that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour.  It is equally well settled that when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be scrupulously followed, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty.  Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the view that HUDA has failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of the inordinate delay of 99 days and the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed on that short ground.       

9.       From a perusal of certified copy of the impugned order, dated 09.12.2016, placed on record, it is evident that it was issued to HUDA on 17.02.2017 and was, admittedly, received by it on 20.02.2017.  Though HUDA was required to file the Revision Petition within a period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation-14 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 but the same has been filed only on 25.08.2017, with the aforesaid inordinate delay of 99 days, over and above the said stipulated period.  The said delay is sought to be explained by HUDA on the plea that it all occurred because of procedural requirements/sanctions in taking a decision to file the Revision Petition; assigning the matter to the Advocate; and completing the necessary formalities for filing the Revision Petition.  Though the certified copy of the impugned order had been received in the office of HUDA on 20.02.2017 but the Record Keeper took 10 days in placing the same before the person concerned.  Thereafter, on 07.03.2017 the Legal Cell of HUDA opined that it was a fit case for filing the Revision Petition and, accordingly, for necessary action in the matter, marked the file to the Estate Officer, Panchkula, who allegedly misplaced the file.  On retrieval of the file, on 19.04.2017, i.e. more than 40 days after marking of the said file to him, the Estate Officer sent the file to the Administrator, at the same place, for necessary approval.  In the absence of any explanation from the Estate Officer on this aspect of the matter, either in the Application or in the Affidavit, filed by him in support thereof, the averment as regards misplacement of the file does not inspire confidence.  It is not explained how the file re-surfaced.  Further, after engagement of the present Counsel by the Advocate General and receipt of the file on 27.04.2017, official of HUDA took over two weeks in transmitting the necessary documents to the Counsel.  The cumulative effect of all the slack exercise undertaken by HUDA and its functionaries in pursuing the matter at their end has resulted in the Revision Petition being filed with the aforesaid inordinate delay.   If in the opinion of HUDA, it was within its rights to charge penal amount from the Complainants and the State Commission had erroneously allowed the Complaint, they were required to pursue the matter at their end expeditiously but that was not to be.  Such casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563.   We are, therefore, of the opinion that HUDA has failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of over three months in filing the Revision Petition.  Although, apparently, there is delay of 99 days, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein there was serious allegation of manipulation of the record, perhaps, to save the skin of some official because of inaction on his part, condonation of delay of even this period would not only be travesty of justice, it would also embolden the delinquent to repeat such acts of omission and commission, which may some time go unnoticed.      

10.     Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.