Order No. 3/29.09.2008.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Appellant through Mr. S. P. Kar, the Ld. Advocate and Respondent through Mr. S. Bagchi, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Respondent files chronology of dates with a copy to the other side.  Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner – Appellant and the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.  It appears that the judgement dated 26.02.2008 was intended to be challenged after a certified copy was obtained on 1^st April, 2008.  The appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation.  The explanation in the application for condonation of delay shows that after the certified copy was made available on 1^st April, 2008, the decision was taken on 17.04.2008 for preferring an appeal and thereafter it took two months in finding out a Lawyer for preferring the appeal.  This type of conduct on the part of the mighty authorities like the present Appellant having staff dealing with legal matters and of a panel of Lawyers, cannot be appreciated when we find that long period of two months is taken only in selecting a Counsel for preferring an appeal.  We do not feel that this is a sufficient explanation, particularly in case of a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in which the intention has expressly repeated by the legislature and the Forum/Commission for expeditious hearing.  In the above view of the matter we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and the appeal accordingly stands dismissed.