PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  There is a delay of 540 days in filing the present revision petition.  The counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay.  The petitioner has explained the delay in para Nos. 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay, which run as follows:-

“3. No intimation regarding decision of F.A.s No. 704 of 2007 was received in the office of the petitioner.  In December, 2012, Assistant appeared before District Forum, Gurgaon in execution petition and came to know that appeal filed by HUDA has been dismissed vide SCDRC, Panchkula order dated 02.01.12.  Assistant obtained the copy of order from opposite counsel on 17.12.12 and put up the same on file on 01.01.13. Vide office memo No. 882.83 dated 04.02.13 and memo No. 1833-34 dated 14.03.13, memo No. 1865-66 dated 15.03.13, memo No. 1959-60 dated 25.03.13, memo No. 2649-50 dated 08.04.2013, memo No. 2677-78 dated 09.04.13 memo No. 3437-38 dated 06.05.13, Accounts officer was requested to direct the concerned official to intimate the financial implication involved in the matter as per DCF order and as per HUDQA policy.  Sub Divisional Engineer(s) was also requested to direct the concerned official to intimate the date of offer of possession, date of construction & date of completion so that order dated 02.01.12 may be examined for filing Revision Petition.

4.   Account branch has intimated in July, 2013 that the financial implication involved in the matter is     Rs. 2,26,31,211/- as per DCF order and                       Rs. 2,46,45,286/- as per HUDA policy i.e. financial implication is Rs. 20,74,075/- above HUDA policy.  Sub Divisional Engineer(S) also submitted its report on file on 29.07.13.  Thereafter, the approval to file Revision Petition against impugned order dated 02.01.12 was taken from worthy Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon and the present petition is being filed without any further delay.”

2.      We are not impressed by all these arguments.  It is noteworthy that in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has mentioned there is a delay of 375 days only but Registry reports that there is a delay of 540 days.  It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has not filed the certified copies of the orders of the District Forum and State Commission.  Registry is hereby warned that not to accept such like revision petitions.  The filing of certified copies is mandatory, only in exceptional cases, the same can be admitted without filing of certified copies.

3.      The petitioner has made a lame excuse.  It has not explained day-to-day delay except for few dates.  This is a huge delay and delay cannot be condoned.  The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view.

4.      In a recent authority in the Office of the Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012,  by the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, it was held that :-

“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.

5.      Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.      Similar view was taken in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

7.      Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition as barred by time.