PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioners present. Arguments heard. There is a delay of 1387 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The petitioners have moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in paras No. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 & 11, which are reproduced as under:- “3. That the impugned Final Order was passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. on 21.1.2010. 4. That the entire record of related to the abovesaid case was misplaced from the office of the Executive Engineer, EDD-I, Fatehpur and the record keeper was also retired, so the said misplacement of the files, same could not come into the knowledge of the Applicants/Petitioners. 5. That around 15/12/2012, the Applicant/Petitioners found some record related to this case and first time became aware about the said litigation with the Respondent. 6. That thereafter the said matter was forwarded to the legal department of the office of the Petitioner No.1. 7. That thereafter the permission was taken from the higher authorities for appointment of the Advocate for finding out the correct status of the case. 8. That thereafter the Petitioners engaged their panel advocate in the abovesaid case. 9. That thereafter the said Application for the certified copy was applied by the Petitioner and same is provided to Advocate of the Petitioner, and thereafter the same is sent to legal Department of the Petitioner. 10. That thereafter, Petitioners required some time for providing the necessary documents to his Advocate herein this Petition. 11. That thereafter, the said Petition was duly signed with duly attested affidavit.” 2. The petitioners have failed to explain day-to-day delay. No departmental action was taken against the Executive Engineer, EDD-I, Fatehpur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that departmental action was taken against the Record Keeper, who has retired. However, no document saw the light of the day. Counsel for the petitioner wants to produce the same. It is already a delayed case, no further opportunity can be granted. Such like excuses can be made at any time. The petitioner- Managing Director, Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigal Limited has been negligent in pursuing this case. This case is supported by various authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), 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 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045. 3. There is gross negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioners, therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed. | 
