JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This revision petition has been filed by M.P. Housing Board. The Housing Board advertised regarding allotment of residential flats in Padra Rewa, in ainik Jagran dated 07.07.2003 and again on 29.07.2003. Rakesh Kumar Awasthy, the respondent booked flat for HIG Junior Group by depositing 10% of the total amount in the sum of Rs.60,000/-, the total amount being Rs.6,00,000/-. 2. As per Agreement, the petitioners revised the cost by 10% on 02.02.2006, making the total cost at Rs.6,60,000/- and again on 28.02.2007, 10%, making the new cost of the flat at Rs.7,26,000/-. The respondent had consented to it. On 03.05.2007, the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards the payment of installments on 03.05.2007, 29.06.2007 and 10.01.2008. The total amount came to Rs.4,80,000/-. 3. On 03.12.2008, the petitioners asked for fourth installment in the sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The cost of the flat was increased by 10%, total being Rs.9,51,000/- on 07.02.2009, and requested the respondent to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.4,11,000/-, on or before 25.02.2009. In the meantime, the respondent moved an application for refund of the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- deposited with the petitioners towards the allotment of the said plot. When the petitioner declined to do the needful, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. 4. The District Forum directed refund of the amount of Rs.5,40,000/- with 18% interest from the date of the deposit, within two months. It also directed the petitioner herein to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 5. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. First of all, there is delay of 162 days in filing the present revision petition. It is explained that the file was processed in the Department and a decision was taken to file the revision petition. The file was sent to the Lawyer at New Delhi. An incomplete set of documents were received by the counsel at New Delhi and there were certain pleadings and documents which were missing from the file. The Advocate instructed the petitioners to send the complete file along with all the pleadings. Most of the documents were in Hindi and were dim and illegible. Documents were sent back to Bhopal and Rewa. After consistent follow-up at every level, the said pleadings and documents were received in the last week of February. The documents were got translated, but unfortunately, the court clerk of the Advocate, after taking the delivery of the said documents, kept them in another file of the petitioner, relating to the case pending before the Honle High Court. After three weeks the documents were traced. 7. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above said arguments. We are of the considered view that the delay in filing the revision petition has not been ufficiently explained. There is negligence, inaction and passivity which is uncondonable. It is difficult to fathom as to why illegible documents were sent to the Advocate. It is also not understood as to why the court clerk kept the documents in some other file. This cannot be said to be ufficient cause by any standard. In a recent authority in the Office of the 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 :- 3. 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. 8. See also Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors., S.C., decided on 08.07.2010, in Civil Appeal No. 1166 OF 2006. 9. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that t 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. See also, (1) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108; (2) Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361; and (3) Sow Kamalabai, W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya, S/o Sayanna Shrimal Vs. Ganpat Vithalroa Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh. LJ 807. 11. The case is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. Let us advert to the merits of this case. Although, the terms and conditions of the allotment letter permit the M.P. Housing Board to enhance the amount, yet, there must be an end to it. The advertisements were published in the year 2003. The possession of the flat was not given till 07.02.2009. Although, ime was not the essence of the Agreement, yet, there has been inordinate delay in giving the possession to the public. The Government is not supposed to take the people for a ride. It is also not supposed to increase the price every ow and then A poor onsumer cannot pay enhancement of cost of the flat, every year. 12. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that grant of 18% of interest as well as compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with costs of Rs.5,000/-, was not warranted by the well established cannons of law. He contended that either of these two conditions should have been imposed. 13. We are not impressed by his argument. A person is waiting for the house for the last 6-7 years There is no inkling when he would get the house. There is an inordinate delay in construction. The petitioners have parted with the money for more than 3-5 years It is well known that the prices of land have increased by leaps and bounds. The prices of flats are skyrocketing. A middle group family can afford Rs.6,00,000/- in the year, 2003, but an amount of more than Rs.9,00,000/- in the year 2007, must be unaffordable. The petitioners should have paid back the amount immediately after the request was made. It is difficult to fathom as to why the petitioner were interested in procrastination. This appears to be an exceptional case and the compensation granted by the fora below appears to be just and reasonable. The revision petition is meritless and deserves no consideration. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on the point of delay, and on merits, as well.