Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the Application, seeking condonation of delay of 160 days in filing the present Appeal.

It is admitted by the Appellants in para-2 of the Application that the certified copy of the order dated 03.01.2018, passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 171 of 2017, was received by them on 27.02.2018.  Thereafter, Law Officer-I took 5 weeks in processing the file and marking the matter to the Sr. Law Officer on 05.04.2018 for taking comments from the Estate Officer (Housing). Though the file was then marked to the Estate Officer (Housing) on the same date (05.04.2018) and the Assistant concerned had also put up a note on 06.04.2018, the Accounts Officer took 10 days in processing the matter at its end.  Thereafter, the Assistant took almost 15 days in proposing to challenge the order passed by the State Commission.  Then, the file was marked to the Superintendent on 02.05.2018.  In the process, on 04.05.2018 the file was sent by the Sr. Law Officer to the Law Officer concerned, yet the said Officer took 12 days in seeking clarification from the Estate Officer on 16.05.2018.  On 01.06.2018, i.e. after 15 days, the reply note was put up by the concerned Assistant and thereafter the file travelled from one table to another and the matter was delayed. Resultantly, the Appeal has been filed before this Commission with inordinate delay of 160 days, over and above the stipulated period of 30 days.

          Such conduct on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to observe thus:       

“28.    Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.   

29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

(emphasis supplied)                   

          In view of the above, we are not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Appellants and, therefore, decline to condone the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.  Accordingly, the Application, seeking condonation of delay, is rejected and the Appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.