This revision petition is directed against the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, “State Commission”) dated 15.4.2013 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.109 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner/Board against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer.

2.      The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days as provided in Regulation 14 (i) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 with a delay of 164 days.  The petitioner, therefore has filed an application for condonation of delay.

3.      Learned Shri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and that the petitioner was prevented in filing of the revision petition in view of the explanation given in para No.3 of the application for condonation of delay.  It is further contended that the petitioner has a very good case on merit.  If the delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injustice.  Application is resisted by learned counsel for the respondent.  In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look the explanation for delay given in para 3 of the application, which is reproduced thus :-

“3.     It is submitted that the impugned judgment was passed on 15.4.2013 and the requisition to file revision petitioner challenging the impugned judgment was sent by Ajmer Division to Jaipur Head on 10.5.2013 and the present counsel was notified to file present revision petition, however, the counsel did not receive the documents and certified copy of the impugned judgment.  The counsel for the petitioner then wrote to the petitioner/Board in Jaipur, vide letter dated 29.6.2013 asking for the documents and certified copy of the impugned judgment.  However, inadvertent the concerned officers in Ajmer was not able to follow up the matter and due to miscommunication the documents could only be made available to the counsel for the petitioner on 4.1.2014.  The documents were in Hindi and the same was translated and typed.  The counsel for the petitioner after receiving typed and translated documents drafted the present revision petition and filed it immediately without any delay.  However, due to aforesaid extraordinary circumstances, there is a delay in the present matter.”

4.         We are not satisfied with the above explanation for the delay in filing of the revision petition.  It is stated that counsel for the petitioner could not file the revision petition in time because he did not receive the copies of the documents and certified copy of the impugned judgment. There is no explanation as to why the relevant documents and certified copies were not provided to the counsel in the first instance.  It is further stated in the application that the counsel for the petitioner asked for the documents and certified copy of the order vide letter dated 29.06.2013 but due to inadvertence of the concerned officials at Ajmer, the request was not followed up and the documents could not be made available to the counsel for the petitioner till 04.01.2014.  Thereafter, some time was also consumed in getting the documents translated.   There is no cogent explanation as to why period of more than five months were taken by the officials of the petitioner Board to make available the copies of the relevant documents and certified copy of the impugned order to the counsel despite of having received his request.  Thus, it is evident that petitioner Board was grossly negligent in pursuing this matter.  Thus, we find no reason to condone the delay.

5.         The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. In order to succeed on condonation of delay, the petitioner is required to explain day to day delay in filing of the revision petition beyond the period of limitation.  Now, the question is whether the petitioner has been able to explain day to day delay?  The answer to the above question is in the negative for the reason that on perusal of application of condonation of delay including the prayer clause, we find that nowhere in the application, the period of delay is quantified and spaces have been left blank in this regard.  If at the time of filing the application of condonation of delay, the petitioner was not certain about quantum of delay, then how can the explanation for day to day delay in filing of the revision petition be accepted.

6.         We are conscious that while dealing with the application of condonation of delay, the Courts / Tribunals are expected to have a liberal approach but this does not mean that the petitioner seeking condonation of delay can get away with the gross negligence in pursuing the matter.

7.         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”.

8.         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.

9.   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”.

10.        Recently, 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.”

11.       In the light of the above settled position in law as also the discussion above, we do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay of 164 days in filing of revision petition.  Application of condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed.  As a  consequence, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.

12.       The petitioner Department is at liberty to conduct departmental inquiry to fix the responsibility for delay in filing of the revision petition and recover the amount from erring officials.