This Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Bihar State Housing Board (for short “the Board” against order dated 30.09.2008, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna (for short “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No.833 of 2005.  By the impugned order, the State Commission, while dismissing the said appeal, has modified the order dated 30.06.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Saran, Chapra (for short “the District Forum”), in Complaint No. 41 of 2005, to the extent of setting aside the direction given to the Board to pay to the Respondent/Complainant interest @ 15% per annum on the amount deposited by him.  Besides, the District Forum had also directed the Board to deliver possession of the subject plot to the Respondent/Complainant by effecting final registration after full development of the plot within a period of two months and to pay costs of Rs.1000/-, which directions have been upheld by the State Commission.

          It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 225 days in filing the same.  Application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said application, the explanation furnished for the delay is as under:

“3.      That vide letter dated 10.1.2009 the advocate conducting the case before the State Commission inform the appellant-Board that the First Appeal No. 833 of 2005 has been dismissed, however as the registry of the Hon’ble State Commission did not sent a copy of the order dated 30.9.2008 therefore he had no knowledge about the same.  The said advocate has stated that upon knowledge on 6.1.2009 he obtained a copy of order dated 30.9.2008.

4.       That thereafter the file was putup for taking necessary approval for filing Revision Petition before the Hon’ble National Commission.  The matter was referred to the local counsel for preparing the draft of Revision Petition and upon receipt of the same vide letter dated 3.7.2009 the draft Revision Petition was sent to the counsel at Delhi for filing Revision Petition.

5.       That thereafter translation of order dated 30.6.2009 was gone done from an advocate and the documents were got ready and the Revision Petition was filed before the Hon’ble National Commission.  However, in this process a delay of 225 days has occurred in filing the present Revision Petition.”

          We have heard learned counsel for the Board on the question of delay.

          In our view, the explanation furnished by the Board is wholly unsatisfactory.  It is evident that the Board has been negligent in prosecuting the case.  Though the impugned order had been passed by the State Commission on 30.09.2008 in the presence of counsel for the parties, yet, even if the order was not received by the Board in the normal course, there was no reason why it did not apply for issue of certified copy for over three months.  Furthermore, the Board took about seven months in assigning the case to a counsel, for which period too there is no explanation.  Ultimately the Revision Petition was filed on 11.08.2009, with a delay of 225 days.  It is pertinent to note that the District Forum had passed the order in favour of the Respondent/Complainant as far back as on 30.06.2005 and still he has not succeeded in getting it enforced. 

          The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts.  Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :

“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 bona fides, 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 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 bona fide 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

          In view of the aforementioned facts, we are of the view that the Board has been thoroughly negligent in prosecuting its cause and the explanation furnished by it lacks bonafides as well.  Consequently, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 225 days in filing of the present Revision Petition, which is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.