ORDER NO. 5 DT. 25.05.2012

MRS. S.MAJUMDER, MEMBER

          This Appeal is filed by the Appellants out of time by 78 days from the date of passing the impugned judgement by the Ld. District Forum. 

          In the petition for condonation of delay it is stated by the Appellants that the copy of the impugned judgement was issued by the Ld. Forum below on 9.11.11 and after receipt of the same the said impugned judgement was referred to the Chief Post Master General, North Bengal and Sikkim Region, Siliguri, through a letter dt. 15.11.11 for administrative approval of the higher authority towards filing an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission.  The approval from the higher authority towards such filing was received on 28.11.11 and the present Appellants were directed to obtain legal opinion from the Government Pleaders for preferring an appeal and with the above-mentioned view the matter was sent to the Government Pleaders for their valued opinion.  On 1.12.11 the Appellants received legal opinion from the Government Pleaders and intimated the same to the higher authority for further instructions.  Thereafter the certified copy of the impugned judgement was obtained on 14.12.11.  On 5.12.11 the Appellants received instruction from the higher authority to contact with M.O.L. for legal opinion towards filing an appeal and on the same day the Appellats contacted M.O.L. for necessary action and the Ministry of Law by issuing a letter dt. 9.12.11 granted permission and also advised to contact the Litigation Section for engagement of a Ld. Counsel for preferring the Appeal.  The Appellants also informed the opinion of the M.O.L. to the higher authorities on 13.12.11 and the Chief Post Master General, North Bengal and Sikkim Region, approved for filing an appeal.  Thereafter the Appellants contacted Litigation Section of Ministry of Law and Justice for engagement of a Government Pleader for filing this Appeal on behalf of the Department.  The Ministry of Law issued engagement letter on 4.1.12 for filing the instant Appeal.  According to the Appellants, as there is no intentional laches and negligence, if the delay is not condoned and the Appeal is not admitted, the Appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury and  prayer is made for allowing the petition for condonation of delay.

          The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has submitted that in the petition for codonation of delay there is no cogent and sufficient explanation for such delay, which is mandatory as per order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.  The Respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay.

          We have perused the petition carefully and heard arguments as advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.  It is seen by us that the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench at Alipurduar, has passed the impugned judgement on 28.9.11 in the Case No. CF 28/2010 and on the same day the certified copy was delivered to the Appellants and the instant Appeal was filed on 16.1.12 before this Commission.  The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that after receipt of the free copy of the impugned judgement they did not consume any unethical and unreasonable time for preferring this Appeal.  We have noticed that in the certified copy of the judgement though it was written by the Ld. District Forum below that free copy was issued on 28.9.11 but the reason as to why these Appellants got the said plain copy on 9.11.11 has not been assigned in the petition for condonation of delay and even no evidence has been filed in this respect.  Moreover, when the said complaint case was disposed of on contest, then it can safely be said that the date of delivery of the judgement was within the knowledge of the Appellants.  But as the Appellants have failed to make any contact with the Ld. Forum below in respect of getting the certified copy of the impugned judgement, the liability cannot lie upon the Ld. Forum below because the Appellants have taken a point to the effect that after getting the free copy of the judgement the Appellants did not sit idle.  There is no averment within the four corners of the petition for condonation of delay as to why the Appellants made application for the certified copy on 14.12.11, i.e. after a lapse of more than two months.  As there is no explanation for the above-mentioned two months in the petition for condonation of delay, we are not inclined to allow this petition.  It is true that there are several judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the Hon’ble National Commission to the effect that in respect of a delay, sufficient and cogent explanations should be there.  As this petition suffers from such cogent and sufficient explanation, we are inclined to dismiss the petition for condonation of delay.

          In view of the foregoing discussions it is ORDERED that the petition for condonation of delay stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.  Consequently the Appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation.