No. 8/07.02.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. Sukhen Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate and Respondents through Mr. A. Santra, the Ld. Advocate are present.

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.  The appeal has been filed out of time by about 79 days.  The impugned judgement has been passed on 29.03.2010.  It appears from the certified copy of the impugned order that a free copy of the same was despatched to the Appellanton 06.04.2010.  It further appears therefrom that for the purpose of filing this appeal this certified copy of the impugned order was applied for on 24.05.2010 and the same was delivered to the Appellant on the very same day.  In the petition for condonation of delay it has been stated that the aforesaid impugned order was passed on 29.03.2010 when the Appellant was not present at the time of final hearing of the complaint case.  Surprisingly the impugned judgement nowhere indicates that the complaint case was disposed on 29.03.2010 when the Appellant was not present.  Furthermore, the contention as put forward by the Appellant that the said free copy was though sent to the Appellant on 06.04.2010 but the same did not reach to the Appellant as the address of the Appellant as given in the complaint case was not correct does not create any impression in favour of the Appellant as during the proceeding before the Forum below the Complainant did never indicate that the Appellant was impleaded in the complaint with a wrong address.  That again, there being no explanation, in the facts and circumstances as above as to the delay in making the above application for the certified copy of the impugned order, we are not satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from the preferring this appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 

The Appellant in support of its above application for condonation of delay has referred to a Supreme Court decision reported in (2011) 1 WBLR (SC) 1 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – vs. – Subrata Borah Chowlek Etc. holding therein that for the purpose of condonation of delay court must be satisfied with the explanation for the delay and such explanation does not make any distinction between the State and the citizen, nonetheless adoption of a strict standard of proof in case of the Government, which is dependant on the actions of its officials, wh often do not have any personal interest in its transactions, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice and, therefore, certain amount of latitude is permissible in such cases.  The facts and circumstances as stated above does not inspire this Commission to apply the said principle of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court herein in this case.  This application for condonation of delay clearly demonstrates the lack of bonafide on the part of the Appellant.  Furthermore, it is guilty of utter negligence.  Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  The appeal shall stand dismissed as being barred by limitation.