This revision petition is directed against the order of
Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (in short, “State Commission”) dated 6.12.2013 in appeal No.304 of 2013 whereby State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal against the order of the District Forum. As a consequence also, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 2. Shri Pankul Nagpal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because it is non-speaking order and it does not detail the reasons for the rejection of application for condonation of delay but for a vague observation that the delay of 95 days had not been properly explained. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was prevented from filing of appeal due to good reason and he has very good case on merit. If the impugned order is allowed to sustain it would cause grave injustice to the petitioner. 3. Shri Goutam Bhol, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. 4. Before adverting to the arguments of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to condonation of delay. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held: 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. 32. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.” 6. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; “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”. 7. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ; “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. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down 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”. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be disputed that the order is sketchy and it would have been better if the State Commission had given detailed reasons for dismissing the application for condonation of delay. Instead of remanding the matter back for reconsideration of the application for condonation of delay, it would be appropriate that the application should be looked into at this stage in order to avoid any further delay in the matter. 10. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal. Para 3 of the application deals with the explanation for the delay which is reproduced as under; “3. That the impugned order against which the appeal has been preferred though has been passed on 16.3.2013 but the copy of the aforesaid order has been received by the appellant through the lawyer on 16.3.2013 from the office of the District Forum, Sambalpur. After receipt of the order the appellant obtained necessary permission from the higher authorities for preferring appeal and has also sought opinion from the dealing advocate. And after receipt of the same, the appellant filed the present appeal after consulting his Advocate at Cuttack. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason the appeal is being filed today and the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate. But for the reason stated above. Hence, the delay may be condoned.” 11. On reading of the above, it is obvious that the delay in filing of the appeal is attributed to the bureaucratic procedure without giving specific details about the movement of file from one seat to other. It is not even clear from the explanation as to on which date the permission to file revision petition was granted and how much period was taken by the petitioner – company to send the papers to the concerned lawyer. Thus, it is obvious that there is no explanation whatsoever for delay in filing of appeal. It may be noted that even the period of delay has not been quantified in the application. If the petitioner is not even aware of the exact period of delay, how he is expected to explain day to day delay in filing of the appeal which is essential condition for condonation of delay. Thus, the order of the State Commission declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation cannot be faulted. 12. In view of the discussion above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. | 
