PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.          Counsel for the petitioner heard.  There is a delay of 232  days in filing this revision petition.  The counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay.  The delay has been explained in paras No. 3 to 9, which are reproduced here as under:-

“3.  That the impugned order was passed on 29.11.2011.  That the certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 29.11.2011 and received on 13.01.2012 by the Advocate for the Petitioner.  It was received in the office of the Joint Secretary, Law, KDA alongwith the letter dated 13.01.2012 of the concerned advocate Mr. N.C. Upadhyay for filing the present Petition on 17.01.2012.

4.  That Law Department sent the certified copy of the impugned order which was received by the clerk in the office of Joint Secretary, Zone- 3, KDA on 23.01.2012.

5.  That vide letters dated 24.01.2012 and again by letter dated 19.04.2012, the office asked the concerned advocate in the Hon’ble State Commission to make available the entire records of the case for further necessary legal action as they were not found at the office of the Petitioner.  By letter dated 25.05.2012 the office was informed by the concerned advocate that the original records of the case were not available with him.  The records were misplaced during the litigation.

6.  The photocopy of the documents filed were received by the concerned clerk from the advocates of the Hon’ble District Forum and Hon’ble State Commission.  That a report was made of the entire case and calculating the due amount on the Respondent on 27.08.2012 and necessary approval for filing the present petition was given 29.08.2012 by the Secretary.

7.  That on 30.08.2012, approval was given by Joint Secretary, Law nominating the undersigned Counsel to file the present petition.

8.  That on 06.09.2012, the present Advocate received the present file after studying the papers asked for some more documents.

9.  Thereafter it took some time in drafting the petition, translations etc.”

 2.      The application for condonation of delay only goes to show that there was departmental and procedural delay.  No affidavit of any Advocate was filed with the petition.

3.      We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner.  There is a huge delay of 232 days in filing the present revision petition.  Consumer Act prescribes a summary procedure.  It also prescribes that the Appeal or Petition must be decided within 45 days of its admission.  The object of Law stands defeated.  The following authorities neatly dovetail with this view.

4.    Chief Post Master General & ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., decided on 24.02.2012,  by the Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7595-96 of 2011, it was held that :-

“13. 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. 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. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

5.      In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held 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”.

6.          Similar view was taken in Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Balwant Singh (dead)  Vs.  Jagdish Singh & Ors.  (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006),  decided  on 08.07.2010 & Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221.

7.      We have also considered the merits of this case.  It is difficult to fathom why there was delay on the part of the petitioner, which took the petitioner to wake up to the present reality after the elapse of 13 years.  The State Commission was pleased to hold that:-

“If it is pleaded that the concerned file of the complainant’s house had been misplaced, the KDA should have come forward with a demand for balance outstanding amount if any, on the basis of either the individual ledger or any other account sheet that might have been maintained either in its office or in the bank or on the basis of secondary evidence which should have been prepared in compliance to the direction of the officer on Special Duty (letter dated 27.05.2005), the correct intimation could and should have been sent to the appellant and that too well in time.  We are therefore, not inclined to uphold the contention of the leaarned counsel for the KDA that the appellant committed default in payment of the balance price of the house. 

There is one another aspect of the matter and it is that neither in its written statement filed by the KDA before the Forum below nor in the written objections filed against the memorandum of appeal, an iota about the plea of default in payment with accurate outstanding balance of the price of the house has been mentioned.

The complainant who has paid in all a sum of Rs. 10,374/- as mentioned in her legal notice to the KDA dated 06.10.2004, has discharged her liability of making the entire price of the house.  The KDA is obviously under an obligation to execute the sale deed.”

8.          There is no merit in the revision petition, therefore, the same is dismissed.