JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the State Commission dated 30.08.2018 in Appeal No. FA/328/2018 whereby the petitioners have challenged the order of the District Forum dated 07.03.2018 in complaint case no. CC/345/2016 filed by the respondent. 2. Since the present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 365 days, IA No. 18924 of 2019, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed alongwith this revision petition. 3. We have heard the arguments on the application seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted by the petitioner that delay had occurred because the Bilaspur Development Authority had been defunct for almost 15 years and it had become very difficult for it to trace the documents and understand the current and practical aspects for the implementation of the orders and for getting translation of the orders done. It is submitted that they had also learnt that flat allotted to the complainant had been illegally occupied by someone else, since the complainant had failed to occupy the same and so they found it difficult to get the order executed and hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. It is submitted that they are doing their best to execute the order. On these submissions, it is submitted that delay is inadvertent and is liable to be condoned. 4. There is a huge delay of 365 days in filing the present revision petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the courts can exercise its discretion to condone the delay only where sufficient reasons are shown. The Apex Court has held as under: “12. It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.” 5. It is also a settled preposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained. If a person acts in lethargic manner and continues sitting over the file and takes long time for preparing the file or in getting translations done, or delay in collecting documents, such delay cannot be said to be sufficient and reasonable as these are not the reasons which could not have been avoided. The basic test to determine whether the delay is reasonable or whether the party has been acting with due diligence, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24”. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: "5. We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also warned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. 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 Fora." 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” has clearly held that government departments must show their promptness and eagerness to ensure that they had performed their duties with diligence and commitment. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “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.’ 8. In the present case, the reasons due to which delay had occurred is that petitioner had been defunct for almost 15 years and, therefore, it was difficult for them to trace the file and that they were also finding it difficult to get the impugned order executed because the subject property had been illegally occupied by someone else. 9. We are satisfied that it is not a reasonable and justifiable reason for condoning the delay. The petitioner had been contesting the matter before the District Forum and the State Commission and, therefore, they are well aware of all the documents and had enough time to trace the documents and the other material. 10. From the above, it is apparent that the Petitioner has not made out any ground for condonation of delay of 365 days in filing the present Revision Petition. The Application stands dismissed. Revision Petition 11. Since the present Revision Petition is barred by limitation, the same is dismissed in limine. | 
