PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner heard. There is a delay of 214 days in filing the present Revision Petition, according to the Registry. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is a delay of 274 days. Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. The delay has been explained in para Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the application for condonation of delay, which are reproduced here as under:- “2. That the Impugned Order was passed on 11.09.13 and the certified copy of the said Order was obtained by the counsel for the Petitioner on 08.10.13. The copy was forwarded to the Petitioner office on or about 06.01.2014. The said copy of Order was forwarded to the Director of the Petitioner Company for taking decision as to whether Appeal/Revision should be filed or not. Thereafter, a board meeting was scheduled on 14.01.2014. However on 14/01/2014 there was change in constitution of the company as one of the Directors had resigned and therefore decision could not be taken regarding filing of the present Revision Petition. 3. Next meeting was scheduled on 20.03.2014 wherein it was decided to file the present Appeal/Revision as advised and Vicky Kemla and/or Mr. Vijendra Sharma were authorised in the said resolution to do the needful. - After the said decision immediately the papers were
forwarded to the Advocate for taking necessary steps in last week of March 2014. However, even after regular follow up and necessary co-ordination, said Advocate did not show any zeal in filing the revision and wasted almost three months. Eventually, the Petitioner approached present Advocates and hence the present Revision Petition was filed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case on merit is very strong and he should be given an opportunity of being heard. 3. We are of the considered view that the case is hopelessly barred by time. The petitioner has given the lame excuses. The order was pronounced on 11.09.2013. The petitioner has produced the copy of the certified copy, which clearly goes to show that Registry of State Commission, “Maharashtra, Mumbai” does not know, how to issue a certified copy. The stamp affixed on the certified copy does not give the following particulars:- i) When the order was passed? ii) When the free copy was given to the parties? iii) When the application for certified copy was applied? iv) When the certified copy was prepared? v) When the copy was handed over to the parties? 4. We have warned the State Commission time and again but the State Commission is not adhering to the orders passed by this Commission. This amounts to contempt of Court. If again, such things come to our notice, it will be reported to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for taking action against the Registry. 5. However, in the application for condonation of delay, it was admitted that the counsel for the petitioner got the certified copy on 08.10.2013. It is not explained, why did the counsel take so much time for forwarding the same to the petitioner. There is a delay of about three months. The total prescribed time is 90 days, which had expired in forwarding the copy to the client. Thereafter, there is further delay, which shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner took the matter in a happy go lucky manner without caring for the limitation. First meeting was scheduled for 14.01.2014 and the next meeting was scheduled for 20.03.2014. Lastly, the counsel wasted about three months and could not make up the mind. There is gross negligence in filing the revision petition. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. 6. The Apex Court in a case under the C.P.Act itself, in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), held that “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”. 7. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221 & Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012] 1 SCR 1045. 8. In Banshi Vs. Lakshmi Narain – 1993 (1) R.L.R. 68, it was held that reason for delay was sought to be explained on the ground that the counsel did not inform the appellant in time, was not accepted since it was primarily the duty of the party himself to have gone to lawyer’s office and enquired about the case. 9. Similar view was taken in other cases reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies – 2000 (3) Punj. L.R. 83, and Bhandari Dass Vs. Sushila, 1997 (2) Raj LW 845. 10. The case is hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the case is dismissed. | 
