Maharashtra

StateCommission

MA/11/89

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI GYAN PRAKASH RAMASHANKAR SHRIVASTAV - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP S JINSIWALE

10 Apr 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
Miscellaneous Application No. MA/11/89
 
1. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD
AIROLI DIV AIROLI NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI GYAN PRAKASH RAMASHANKAR SHRIVASTAV
R/A ROOM NO 1162 DIGHA NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
 Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Adv. Sandeep S. Jinsiwale for the Applicant/Appellant
 
Non-Applicant/Respondent in person
 
ORDER

Per – Hon’ble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member

 

          Heard Adv. Sandeep S. Jinsiwale on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant and Mr. Gyan Prakash Ramashankar Shrivastav, Non-Applicant/Respondent in person on the application for condonation of delay.

 

[2]     In filing an Appeal No.152 of 2011 there is a delay of 249 days on the part of the Applicant/Appellant and to seek condonation of delay the Applicant/Appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application No.89 of 2011.  Application for condonation of delay is sworn by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Junuthula Ramchandra Reddy, Deputy Executive Engineer on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant.  In the application for condonation of delay it is stated that delay in filing this appeal occurred primarily because the Applicant/Appellant had not received copy of the impugned order passed by the District Forum and after the Applicant/Appellant was intimated by a letter sent by the Non-Applicant/Respondent that an order has been passed against the Applicant/Appellant, the Applicant/Appellant approached the District Forum and obtained certified copy of the impugned order on 8/12/2010 and filed this appeal on 11/1/2011.  In the process there has been a delay of 249 days in filing this appeal.  Delay is not intentional and since the Applicant/Appellant is a semi-government body it has to take sanctions from higher authorities and, therefore, in the process there has been delay of 249 days on the part of the Applicant/Appellant in filing this appeal.  In order to decide the appeal on merits delay can be condoned subject to certain costs.

 

          Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

 

Miscellaneous Application No.89 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.152 of 2011 is hereby allowed.  Consequently delay in filing appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of `3,000/- to be paid to the Non-Applicant/Respondent by the Applicant/Appellant within a period of 30 days from today (since the order is passed in presence of both the parties) and failing which without any further reference to this Commission the application for condonation of delay shall automatically stands dismissed.

 

 

Pronounced and dictated on 10th April, 2012

 

 
 
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.