This revision petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (for short “the BDA”) against order dated 22.5.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha in F.A. Nos.764 and 918/2007.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has directed the BDA to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant in respect of H.No.S-1/51 of MIG-II Category, allotted to him on 25.11.1989.

It is pointed out by the office that there is a delay of 87 days in filing the revision petition.  Application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed, in which the following explanation for the delay has been furnished:

               “That on 18.7.13 the impugned order was received in the office of the petitioners.

               That after the receipt of the said order the petitioners’ office on 13.8.13 (date) sent the file to Legal Retainer of Bhubaneswar Development Authority for obtaining legal opinion for filing the revision petition.

               That after obtaining the legal opinion from the Legal Retainer of Bhubaneswar Development Authority Department, the concerned officer came to Delhi in the last week of September 2013 for filing the revision petition.

               That the counsel for the petitioners on 30^th September 2013 requested to the Secretary of the Department to approve the filing of the revision petition against both the appeals filed before the State Commission and also requested the law officer to send a copy of the Appeal No.918/2007 filed by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority before the State Commission.

               The law officer received the aforementioned letter dated 30^th September 2013 by hand on the same day and thereafter he came over to Delhi in the first week of November 2013.  The matter was settled for filing on 11^th November 2013.”

          Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the said application, we are of the opinion that the application merits rejection as the BDA failed to make out sufficient cause for the said delay.  As is evident from the afore-extracted paragraph of the application, the only explanation for the delay is shuffling of file between BDA’s lawyer and its officials  The explanation is utterly vague and does not spell out the reason for long delays in movement of file from one authority to another.  Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578,  wherein it has been observed that the entire object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes get defeated if belated appeals and revisions are entertained, we decline to condone the delay of 87 days in filing of this revision petition.  Consequently, the same is dismissed on the ground of limitation.