ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 13.07.2018 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1292 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 27.06.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short “the District Forum”) whereby Complaint No.266 of 2016 filed by the Complainant was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to release domestic electric connection in -2- the premises of the Complainant, pay ₹5,000/- as litigation expenses and ₹10,000/- as compensation. 2. Present Revision Petition has been filed almost after a year of the impugned order. An Application being IA No.11466 of 2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the Revision Petition. 3. I have heard arguments on this application. In the application, it is submitted by the Petitioner that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by them on 30.07.2019 and the free copy was also received on the same date. It is contended in the application that the Petitioner took about 5 months in appointing the legal counsel as he could only be appointed on 05.03.2019 vide memo. Thereafter, the documents relevant to this case were sent to the counsel on 25.04.2019. In May 2019 counsel asked for certain documents which were not readily available and some of the documents were procured in June 2019. Certain documents were not traceable and there was a delay in sending documents to the counsel. Thereafter, the draft of the Revision Petition was sent to the Petitioner for approval of the department and the Revision Petition could be filed only on 18.07.2019. It is submitted that due to these reasons, the delay had occurred. Reliance is placed on “State Of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 132”. It is argued that in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the decisions are taken by the government offices/agencies proverbially at a slow pace and the -3- encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on a table for a considerable length of time causing delay, intentional or otherwise, is routine. It is argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Mani’s case (supra) had condoned the delay of 109 days. 4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. 5. It is required from the courts that they should take a pragmatic approach while dealing with applications for condonation of delay and should adopt a liberal approach and where sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay, the discretion should be exercised in favour of the Petitioner. However, condonation of delay is not a matter of right and sufficient reasons are required to be shown. Where sufficient causes are not shown, the courts have no jurisdiction/discretion to condone the delay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held as under: “12. 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.” -4- 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that even where sufficient causes are shown, if the courts are of the opinion that the Petitioner/Applicant has not acted bonafidely, still the courts are empowered to refuse to condone the delay. 7. What test should be applied by the courts while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24 which is as under: "5. 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. It is, therefore, apparent that the Petitioner is required to show that it had acted with reasonable diligence in preparing his Appeal or Revision Petition. In the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” this Commission has held that the Government Departments are not placed on a better footing than general public and they are under obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “29. 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.’ -5- 9. In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that the special nature of the Act has to be kept in mind while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “5. 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 Fora." 10. In view of the law laid down as discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant/Petitioner is required to explain the delay on day to day basis and is also required to show that he was prevented by reasons beyond his control from filing the Petition. The lethargy on the part of the Petitioner cannot therefore be considered as a reasonable and bonafide reason. The reasons given in the present application seeking condonation of delay shows that even though the copy of the impugned order was received on 30.07.2019, it took more than seven months for the Petitioner to appoint a legal counsel. No explanation has come forward as to why it took so long for the Petitioner to appoint a counsel although the Petitioner is a Government Department and they -6- have their own legal department. The period of limitation had expired during this time. Since no cogent reason has been given for such delay, the delay of this period cannot be condoned. Even otherwise thereafter it took the Petitioner almost 4 months to get the draft prepared and approved and file it. These are all administrative reasons. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239” has held that administrative difficulties would not be a valid reason to condone a delay above and beyond the statutory prescribed period. 12. In view of the above, I am satisfied that no reasonable ground for condonation of delay has been given by the Applicant/Petitioner. The grounds given clearly show the complacent manner in which its officials functioned. The Petitioner is required to revamp its officers so that they become mindful of the legal requirements and act promptly. I found no ground to condone the delay. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine. | 
