JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Learned State Commission dismissed the appeal as the same was delayed by 171 days. Aggrieved by that order dated 03.04.2012, the instant revision petition was filed. 2. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners/OPs. 3. We have perused the application for condonation of delay moved before the State Commission. The learned State Commission has observed that the reason assigned for such late filing is the time consumed in the official processing of file. Learned counsel for the petitioners also admitted that the delay was caused due to procedural and departmental delays. It was also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a liberal view for condonation of delay in the case of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A O as reported in 2005(2) PLJR 209. It was also argued that if the delay is not condoned, it will cause loss and irreparable injury to the Bihar State Electricity Board and public interest will suffer in the ultimate analysis. 4. All these grounds do not constitute the sufficient cause. It is now well settled that departmental and procedural delays do not form a sufficient ground Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It must be borne in mind that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act. There must be some cause that must be sufficient one for the purpose of delay condonation. The following authorities go to fortify this view:- 5. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 6. In Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: “The party should show that besides acting bona fide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005]” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1221 held, “Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.” 8. In another authority reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold: “13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 9. In a recent case in reference “Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal & Anr.”, Revision petition No. 1848 of 2012. There was delay of 104 days in filing the Appeal. The only explanation given was that the file was moving from table to table to get the permission to file the appeal. This Commission, by the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan dated 21.05.2012, dismissed the Appeal as barred by time. 10. In the result, we see no merit in this revision petition and therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
