Anupam Dasgupta This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.02.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission held the appellant Delhi Development Authority (he DDA) guilty of deficiency in service on account of delayed delivery of possession of the flat to the respondent/complainant and partly allowed the complaint by awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant, payable by the DDA within one month. 2. We have heard Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, learned counsel for the DDA. 3. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 84 days. From paragraph 2 of the application seeking condonation of this delay, it is seen that it took the officials concerned of the DDA nearly two months to decide whether an appeal ought to be filed against the above-mentioned order of the State Commission. There is no explanation whatsoever why this process took so long except that the application further stated, . on account of impersonal machinery also no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal This is enough to demonstrate that there was no reason for this delay, much less a ufficient causeto warrant its condonation, as mandated in section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, he Act. 4. In the case of State Bank of India v B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121], the Apex Court made the following observations relating to condonation of delay: 1. Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes the limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus: 4A. Limitation period. (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, hall not admit a complaintoccurring in section 24A is sort of legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 12. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complainant on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. This view was relied upon/reiterated by the Apex Court itself in two more recent cases, viz., Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v National Insurance Co. & Another [(2009) 7 SCC 768] and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v Anita Sena Fernandes [(2011) 1 SCC 53]. 5. In accordance with section 19 of the Act, the statutory period of limitation in filing an appeal against the order of a State Commission is 30 days from the date of the order. The first proviso to this section reads as under: ny person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed 6. This provision is akin to the provision of sub-section (2) section 24A of the Act relating the limitation period in respect of the complaints. In other words, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra is squarely applicable to this case. The grounds cited for condonation of delay in filing this appeal being far from sufficient or satisfactory, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this count. 7. For the aforesaid reasons and also keeping in view the nominal amount of the compensation awarded, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.