ORDER Anupam Dasgupta This appeal challenges the order dated 04.07.2008 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’), Delhi in complaint case no. 69 of 2000 by which the State Commission allowed the complaint of the late Amarjeet Singh Kohli (represented in this appeal by his legal heirs, including wife Mrs. Surinder Kaur Kohli and others, as respondents) and directed the opposite party Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay to the complainant (i) interest @ 12% per annum on the sum of Rs. 3, 31,900/- (the sum deposited by the complainant as the full cost of the DDA flat allotted to him in 1992) from May 1992 to 18.08.1998 and (ii) compensation of Rs. 2 lakh for the mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the late Amarjeet Singh Kohli because of delay in allotment of the flat to him. 2. The appeal was filed after a delay of 205 days along with an application for condonation of the delay. In this application, the DDA sought to explain the delay by stating the following: “2. That the certified copy of the order was obtained by the appellant on 5.9.2008 from the Learned State Commission. The Law Officer (Housing) after receiving the same asked the dealing hand to examine the order in case the same need to be challenged. The dealing hand after opining sent the file to the department who (sic) endorsed the opinion of the dealing hand. The file was sent to the Dy. Director (Housing). The facts were examined at various levels. The decision to file an appeal was taken on 5.12.2008. The case was entrusted to the panel lawyer on 23.12.2008. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Panel Lawyer on 8.1.2009. While going through the file it was found that few (sic) information was not available in the file. The file was sent to the department on 12.1.2009. The information was provided on 16.2.2009 who (sic) prepared the appeal and after having the same signed from the concerned officials was filed (sic). 3. It is stated that on account of impersonal machinery also no one in charge of the matter is (sic) directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal. Moreover the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with (sic) note making file pushing ethos (sic) are responsible for the delay. 4. That there has been no intentional and willful delay on the aprt of the appellant in not filing the appeal within the stipulated period of thirty days. It is further submitted that there has been no negligence on the part of the office of the appellant for (sic) delay in filing the appeal. 5. The appellant has a good prima facie case in its favour and is likely to succeed. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.” [Emphasis supplied] The remaining paragraphs in the application are quite irrelevant as explanations for the delay and hence not reproduced. 3. As we were not persuaded by this explanation, we directed the Director (Housing) and the Chief Accounts Officer to appear and explain the reasons, including one that was cited orally by the learned counsel for the DDA, viz., delay in getting the draft of Rs. 35,000/- made for statutory deposit with the appeal. When neither of these DDA officers could explain the delay, we observed and directed, inter alia, as under on 24.04.2009: “… we direct the Vice-Chairman, DDA to hold an enquiry and fix responsibility for causing undue delay in filing the present appeal by the DDA because it is not the solitary case …. …. we have noticed that almost every appeal/revision filed by the DDA was after the statutory period of limitation, seeking condonation of delay on one ground or the other. The DDA is expected to adhere to the statutory limit for filing the appeals/revisions rather than seek condonation of delay each time. The result of the enquiry and the action taken so as to ensure that in future no such delays occur in filing matters before this Commission shall be filed within six weeks.” 4. The affidavit that was filed in response to this direction was accompanied by copies of (i) a circular dated 08.07.2009 issued by the Commissioner (Housing), DDA; (ii) a letter of warning to an Assistant (i.e., a very junior official) to “be more careful in dealing (sic) the court cases in future”; and (iii) a statement showing the movement of the file concerning this appeal from one officer/official to the next. 5. Though the circular stated that instructions had been issued in the past to the staff to “take prompt action within the stipulated time to file WS/appeals”, there is no reference to any previous circular instruction which would normally be quoted in a communication of this type. If such instructions were indeed issued in the past, it is obvious that they were complied with only in repeated breaches, despite the phrase, “… failing which the lapse will be viewed seriously and responsibility fixed for the same”. It was thus “business as usual” for the officials of the DDA, at least in this regard. 6. The action taken to fix responsibility in the case of this appeal is far too familiar to deserve any comment except that, as usual, the juniormost functionary was found to be the only person responsible for delay (of about two months) and he was naturally let off with a warning to be careful in future. Notably, the delay in filing the appeal was nearly seven months. 7. The reality of the delay in filing appeal in this case lies in the statement of movement of the file in the office of the DDA. This statement shows the following: (i) File with the copy of the State Commission’s impugned order was sent to DD (SFS) [Deputy Director (Self Financing Schemes)] on 08.08.2008. The said officer sent the file to some Section on 26.09.2008. Time taken was 48 days. (ii) The same officer took 9 days to send the file to the Accounts Wing after the Legal Wing gave its opinion. (iii) The Commissioner (Housing) took 7 days to approve the proposal to file the appeal. (iv) The file was moved by the Legal Wing (abbreviated designation of the officer concerned being SLO (H)) through Commissioner (Housing) on 04.12.2008 to seek approval for appointment of Panel Lawyer. The decision to appoint Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, a Panel Lawyer of the DDA, was taken on 23.12.2008. This process involved 19 days. (v) Thereafter, the DD (SFS) took 11 days (26.12.2008 – 06.01.2009) to get the record updated and the Power of Attorney signed. (vi) The file was sent to the same DD (SFS) on 12.01.2009 to provide additional information sought by the Panel Lawyer. DD (SFS) sent the file with additional information to the Panel Lawyer on 16.02.2009, i.e., after 35 days. (vii) The Panel Lawyer sent the draft of the appeal memorandum on 18.02.2009 which was again sent to the DD (SFS) on the same day for getting the appeal memorandum signed and preparing the demand draft to be enclosed by way of statutory deposit with the appeal. However, the reference to the Accounts Branch was made on 05.03.2009, i.e., after 35 days. (viii) The Accounts Branch took 15 days (05.03.2009 – 19.03.2009) to prepare the demand draft for the statutory deposit. 8. It is for the Administrative Head of the DDA (or, his delegatee/s) to look into matters which pertain to its core functions, fix responsibility for undue delays, take punitive action in appropriate cases and, most important, introduce systemic changes to minimise, if not eliminate altogether, such delays because these delays adversely affect the interests of thousands of citizens who come to the DDA for purposes relating to a basic human need like housing. These delays also breed corruption and bring disrepute to the Authority. This Commission (or, any other Consumer Forum) comes into the picture only when either an affected citizen or the DDA itself seeks redressal in a specific matter. However, even in this limited role, we have come across so many cases where the DDA has unconscionably delayed not only the redressal of citizen’s/allottee’s grievances but also legal action where its own interests, as an institution functioning with public funds, are involved. This is a case in the latter category. As the DDA’s own delay analysis in this case and the so-called action pursuant to our directions show, the senior management of the DDA does not appear to be interested in finding a lasting solution nor in taking to task the persons who are responsible for perpetuating such delays. It is a sheer travesty of the process of a fact-finding enquiry that the DDA has sought to bury the matter by holding some junior functionary like an Assistant responsible for the delay in filing this appeal and letting him off with a mere warning – even by DDA’s own finding, the said Assistant was responsible for a delay of 2 months out of 6 plus. The lackadaisical attitude of somehow getting over with the directions to set its own house in order reflects poorly on the DDA’s senior management and is a cause for serious concern for the public at large. The worst that can happen to a public authority like the DDA is to pretend that all is well when the rest of the world knows and thinks otherwise. We hope our observations will spur the DDA management to some meaningful systemic action to curb delays in areas which constitute its basic functions though they may not be as glamorous or eye-catching as the large, high-visibility projects which are displayed on its website. Incidentally, it appears that despite instructions of the Government of India, the DDA’s website does not display a specific Citizen’s Charter. 9. So far as this appeal is concerned, the least we can say is that there is no reason to condone the undue delay. The grounds in the application for condonation or, for that matter, in the additional affidavit mentioned above are not worth the pieces of paper they are written on. Given the details of movement of the file in this case, it is indeed very courageous of the DDA to claim in the application for condonation of delay that there was no negligence on its part (vide paragraph 2 above). Mrs. Girija Wadhwa has tried valiantly to persuade us to look into the merits of her appeal. We are afraid we cannot accommodate her request in the given circumstances. 10. Keeping in view the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v B. S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121.], we dismiss this appeal on the ground of uncondonable delay.