JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 10.02.2014, whereby the said Commission directed the petitioner to handover the possession of MIG-B House no. 5/15, Panchsheel Scheme, Ajmer to the complainant on payment of Rs. 1,67,280 (the amount demanded before possession) + Rs. 3,54,570/- (the amount of 106 EMI at the rate of Rs. 3,345/-), thereby making a total sum of Rs. 5,21,850/-.  The complainant was also directed to pay the lease amount to the petitioner without interest after taking possession.

2.      The facts giving rise to the filing of the revision petition can be summarised as below:-

          The complainant, got himself registered for allotment of a house in the category of Economically Weaker Section by depositing Rs. 500/- with the petitioner, in the year 1980.  Later on, he deposited a sum of Rs. 4,100/-, so as to get the registration changed from EWS to MIG(B).  The change was allowed by the petitioner.  Since, no allotment was made to the complainant, he filed complaint no. 15/2003 before the District Forum.  The said complaint was allowed and the petitioner board was directed to allot a MIG(B) house to the complainant on payment of Rs. 3,35,253/-, after setting off the amount of Rs. 4,600/-, which the complainant had already deposited with it.  Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the complainant preferred appeal no. 2098/2003, wherein the State Commission remanded the matter back to the District Forum with a direction to decide it afresh on merits.  Thereafter, a letter dated 20.11.2003 was issued by the petitioner to the complainant allotting house no. 5/15 in Panchsheel Scheme, Ajmer, GRS No. 58909/79.  Vide aforesaid letter, the petitioner sought to charge the cost prevalent in the year 1998, which was stated to be Rs. 3,64,286/-.  The amount payable by the complainant after adjustment of the amount already deposited by it was stated to be Rs. 3,49,620/-, out of which, Rs. 1,67,280/- was to be paid before possession and Rs. 1,82,340/- were to be paid in 120 monthly instalments alongwith interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum.

          Pursuant to the order of the State Commission in appeal no. 2098/2003, the District Forum disposed of the complaint vide its order dated 18.03.2010.  Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainant again approached the State Commission with a grievance that the order passed by the District Forum was not a speaking order, since it did not indicate the amount to be deposited by the complainant at the time of possession of the house.

3.      The State Commission noticed that the petitioner board has, vide its letter dated 08.06.2010 had demanded a sum of Rs. 15,84,788/- from the complainant before handing over the possession of the house to him.  It was also noted by the State Commission that Mr. Lal Chand  Asnani, the Estate Engineer of the petitioner board had admitted that the persons of the seniority of the complainant had been allotted the house in the year 1998.  The cost in the year 1998 was Rs. 3,35,253/-.  This was so noted by the District Forum in its order dated 13.10.2003.  The complainant however wanted allotment at the price prevalent in the year 1990 and not at the price prevalent in the year 1998, on the ground that the persons of his seniority had been allotted in the year1990 and not in the year 1998.  The State Commission also noted that Mr. P. M. Deegarwal, an Engineer of the petitioner Board had submitted an affidavit dated 24.09.2012, during pendency of the appeal,  stating therein that a sum of Rs. 10,86,820/- had been demanded from the complainant in compliance of the order of the District Forum dated 18.03.2010.  The break-up of the said amount had also been given in the affidavit.  The State Commission found glaring disparity in the letter of demand dated 17.06.2010 and the letter of the Board dated 08.06.2010.  The State Commission took the view that the petitioner Board had illegally raised the demand of Rs. 15,84,778/- from the complainant and directed handing over of possession on payment of Rs. 5,21,850/-.  Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the petitioner board is before us by way of this revision petition.

4.      Since there is a delay of 54 days in filing this revision petition, petitioner has filed I.A. No. 4407/2014, seeking the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

5.      The explanation given by the petitioner for delay in filing the revision petition reads as under:-

  2. That the State Commission vide impugned order dated 10.02.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the comflainant/respondent.  It is submitted that thereafter the certified copy was applied on 12.02.2014 and same was received by the counsel for the petitioner/board on 13.02.2014.     

3.         That thereafter opinion was sought in the matter for filing revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission.  It is respectfully submitted that after completing all the necessary formalities the matter was handed over for filing revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission in first week of June, 2014.

  4.      That thereafter the revision petition was drafted and translation of the annexures were done and in these process sometime was consumed by the counsel for the petitioner and after getting all these things the revision petition is being filed without causing any further delay in the matter.”    

6.      It would thus be seen that though the copy of the impugned order had been received by the petitioner board on 13.02.2014, the brief for filing the revision petition was entrusted only in first week of June, 2014.  There is no explanation for delay of the each day between 13.02.2013, when the copy of the order was received by the petitioner and the first week of June, 2014, when the matter was handed over for filing the revision petition.  The application does not indicate, when the file was submitted to the Competent Authority for deciding whether to accept the impugned order or to challenge it by way of revision petition.  The application does not disclose when the Competent Authority took the decision to challenge the order of the State Commission by way of revision petition before this Commission.  The application does not disclose when the advocate was requested to give his opinion and when the said opinion was received.  Day to day movement of the file is also not disclosed in the application.  In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that the delay between 13.02.2013 and the first week of June, 2014, has been duly explained.

          Moreover, even after first week of June, 2014, no promptness was shown by the petitioner since the revision petition came to be filed only on 07.07.2014, though the Registry of this Commission was open even in the month of June.

7.        The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) interalia held as under:

“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”.

            In Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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 bonafide, 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 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.

 30. 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.

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition.

9.      However, the learned counsel for the respondent states on instruction that in addition to the principal sum, demanded vide letter dated 20.11.2003, the complainant shall also pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the lump sum amount of  Rs. 1,67,280/- and at the rate of 18.5% per annum on the amount of equated monthly instalments, mentioned in the letter dated 2.11.2003 before taking possession of the house in question from the petitioner.  The total amount, calculated in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel would be higher than the amount payable under the order of the State Commission.  In view of the aforesaid statement, we direct the petitioner board to handover the possession of house in question to the complainant only on receipt of the amount mentioned in the letter dated 20.11.2003 alongwith interest as stated hereinabove.  The complainant will be entitled to adjust the amount already deposited by him while complying with this order.

10.    The application for condonation of delay as well as the revision petition stand disposed of accordingly.