Though the office has reported that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the present petition but learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 was actually dispatched by the State Commission on 21.10.2010 and received in the office of the concerned Post Master Office on 3.11.2010 and, therefore, there is no delay in filing the present petition. 

Going by his submissions, we treat that the petition has been filed after a delay of one day which we condone in the given facts and circumstances.

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 09 of 2009.  The appeal   before   the   State  Commission was filed after

-3-

undue delay of 130 days and alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed on certain grounds.  The State Commission after due consideration of the matter and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, declined to condone the said delay in filing the appeal before it by giving detailed reasons and consequently, dismissed the appeal also.

We have heard Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India.  He reiterates almost the same submissions, which were put forth before the State Commission in support of the application.  What emerges from his submissions is that the delay was occasioned due to procedural formalities required at different levels of the Government.  We are least impressed with such kind of arguments, which has been repeated number of times before various courts and Tribunal.  The legislature in its wisdom has not provided any special treatment to either Government or instrumentalities of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution.  Therefore, law of limitation applies equally to them with all its rigor.  The State Commission has given valid reasons why it did not consider it appropriate to condone the delay in this case.  We are

-4-

in full agreement with the same.  The order passed by the State Commission is in strict consonance of the legal position as settled by the Apex Court and various High Courts in number of cases.  No interference is required.  Despite having said so, we find that the order passed by the District Forum was eminently justified because it was the officer of the petitioner-postal department, who despite their knowledge of all the relevant Rules, have issued Kisan Vikas Patras to the complainant.  When it came for payment of Kisan Vikas Patra on maturity, they cannot be allowed to take the defence that the Kisan Vikas Patras were not issued in accordance with the rules.

The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  However, it would be open for the petitioner-Union of India to take such action against the errant officer, who had issued Kisan Vikas Patras in violation of the relevant Rules.