1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Meerut Development Authority (for short “the Authority”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.09.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh

-2-

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1053 of 2004.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Authority.    

2.       The effect of the order impugned in the Revision Petition is that the order dated 16.04.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Meerut (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2004, preferred by the Complainant, is maintained.  By the said order, the District Forum had allowed the Complaint, directing the Authority to pay to the Complainant the deposited amount of ₹1,21,086/- within one month from the date of the order with interest @ 15% p.a.; ₹8,000/- as cost and ₹5,000/- as litigation charges of the Complaint.

3.       The Complaint came to be filed under the following circumstances:  

3.1     The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party to get allotment of plot in Vedvyaspuri Residential Scheme; he was allotted one land bearing no.423 MIG admesuring 112 sq. mtrs. on payment of 20% cash; the Complainant deposited ₹10,600/- with the Opposite Party; that the Complainant deposited ₹1,21,086/- with the Opposite Party on different dates from 28.01.2001 to 29.06.2001; that the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to hand over possession of the allotted plot but the Opposite Party did not deliver possession of the same; however, the Opposite Party offered another plot in Pocket ‘C’ bearing Plot No.C-607/1 and asked the Complainant to give his consent within 15 days and in the event of not giving consent in writing threatened to allot the said plot in favour of another person; that the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to allot him

-3-

plot no.c-601/1 admeasuring 112 sq. mtrs. in place of plot no.B-423 which was not done; that the Complainant is ready and willing to get the plot in the said Scheme on old rates but the Opposite Party is not ready and willing to allot the plot in favour of the Complainant on old rates. 

3.2     In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Authority, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Authority to allot plot in Pocket ‘B’ ameasuring 112 sq. mtrs. in place of old allotted plot no.B-423 on old rates and if not possible, to refund the amount deposited by the Complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. along with cost.

4.       Having suffered the adverse orders by the District Forum and the State Commission, the Authority is before us in the present Revision Petition.

5.       It is pointed out by the office that the Revision Petition is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 201 days in filing the same.  An Application, seeking condonation of the delay, has also been filed with the Revision Petition.  The explanation for the delay, in the narrative form, is contained in paragraphs 3 – 7 thereof, which are extracted below for the sake of ready reference: 

“3.   That the impugned judgment and order was passed by the Hon’ble State Commission on 14.09.2015 and a copy of the same was issued to the Revisionist on 30.05.2016.  Thereafter, the Revisionist took legal advice regarding future steps to be taken in the matter and their counsel advised to file a petition before Hon’ble National Commission at New Delhi;

4.       That pursuant to the said legal advice, the file was processed for sending to the lawyer concerned.

-4-

5.     However, after obtaining all the permissions and documents from the Hon’ble State Commission, in the third week of January, 2015 the authorized representative of Revisionist herein came to Delhi and met with his Counsel who advised to send all the papers pertaining to the present case for drafting a revision petition properly.  After procuring all the relevant papers including complaint case of the respondent herein, the same were given for English translation as originally the same are in Hindi language.  The translation work also took a couple of weeks as it was voluminous and quite a lot.

6.      That after receiving the English translation, the counsel prepared draft present Revision Petition along with Application for stay and an Application for Condonation of Delay and sent the same to the Revisionist for swearing affidavit, etc. and hence the present Revision Petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Commission;

7.     It is submitted with respect that due to reasons mentioned above, the present Revision Petition could not be filed earlier and some delay has crept into which are totally beyond the control of the petitioners and the same may kindly be condoned by this Hon’ble Commission in the interest of justice;

(Emphasis supplied)  

6.       In our opinion, the explanation furnished by the Auhtority is absolutely unsatisfactory and does not make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the aforesaid delay.   

7.       Admittedly, the certified copy of the impugned order was issued to the Authority on 30.05.2016.  Going by the same and bearing in mind the limitation period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation-14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, for filing the Revision Petition, the Authority was required to file the same on or before 28.08.2016.  However, the Revision Petition has been filed only on 17.03.2017.  On receipt of the impugned order, the Authority took legal advice from their counsel who advised to file a Petition before this Commission.  In the process the Authority took substantial time in getting issued

-5-

the certified copy of certain documents and translation of certain documents.  The lackadaisical approach of the Authority to the matter is writ large and, accordingly, its plea that it being a public limited company had to take several steps and approvals, resulting in movement of case file from one office to another, and thereby consuming time, is of no avail to it.   The Authority ought to have been on its toes to collect the documents/information sought for by the Counsel, so that the Revision Petition could be filed without further delay.  Alas, it did not happen and its functionaries took substantial time in getting/furnishing the said documents to its Counsel and filing the Revision Petition.

8.       In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the Authority has failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of            201 days in filing the Revision Petition.  In coming to the said conclusion, I have also kept in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained.                          

-6-

9.     Recently in “Postmaster General And Others vs. Living Media India Limited And Another (2012) 3 SCC 563”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to earlier decisions, observed as under:

                            “29. In our view, it is the 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 as 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.”

10.           Having regard to the concurrent finding of fact by both the Fora below with respect to deficiency of service and together with the afore-mentioned reasons and judgments, I am not inclined to condone the afore-stated period of inordinate delay in filing the Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.