1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 25.07.2022 in Appeal No. 722 of 2019 of the State Commission Haryana arising out of Order dated 22.04.2019 of the District Commission in Complaint no.288 of 2018.

2.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 22.04.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 25.07.2022 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition and the memo. of petition.

3.       The present revision has been filed by with the self-admitted delay of 275 days. However, the reported delay by office is 210 days.   

4.       An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.  As the delay does not appear insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

5.       The submissions made by the learned counsel are no different from the grounds taken in the delay condonation application and they have been virtually repeated once again. Submission is that the impugned Order was passed on 25.07.2022 but the same was conveyed to the office of Estate Officer on 09.03.2023.  Learned Counsel has been fair enough to admit that as per record the certified copy was prepared and available on 28.09.2022.  The revision has been filed on 25.07.2023.  Submission is that the counsel was engaged in the matter on 20.04.2023 for drafting the petition. Further submission is that the evidence was not available and, therefore, time got consumed in that regard.  It has been further submitted that later on it was noticed that as per requirement of the Commission other record and evidence was also required to be filed and, therefore, they were also collected subsequently which also took time and could be made available only on 03.07.2023. Submission is that in afore-said circumstances, the delay should be condoned.

6.       Having gone through the grounds taken in the delay condonation application the bench feels constrained to observe that they fall far short of qualifying as sufficient grounds to condone the delay. When the certified copy itself was prepared on 28.09.2022 it is wholly inconceivable as to why the concerned department was so indifferent that it did not bother to collect the same. In fact even after the same was delivered to the department on 09.03.2023. Subsequently, by unreasonably long time was consumed in consultations and collecting evidence which also appear not at all justified. In fact the grounds that have been shown for causing delay only speaks about the managerial inefficiency and slackness on the part of the petitioner institution and nothing else

7.         Ordinarily we tend to adopt a liberal approach on the aspect of considering the point of delay and lean to take an indulgent view towards the side who seeks its condonation. We prefer that a matter be decided on merits rather than be closed at the threshold stage i.e. on the ground of delay, but that does not imply that we may ever ride roughshod over the statutory requirement regarding the law of limitation wherever it has been provided by the legislature in its wisdom. That is why, whenever there is a delay, and whenever condonation on that aspect is sought, by either side, it has to discharge the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds relying upon which such delay may be condoned. It goes without saying that such explanation has to be genuine and not an explanation just for the sake of explanation. Anything and everything said to bridge up a considerable gap of delay is not to be termed as legitimate explanation, which has to be sincere, honest and persuasively adequate and worthy of credence.

8.     The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment in this regard wherever provided.

9.      In the present case however one does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is palpably without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the application.

10.     Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

11.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.