This petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned final Order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in CMP No. 103 of 2024 in FA Sr. No. 66 of 2024. The CMP No. 103/2024 in FA Sr. No. 66/2024 was dismissed by the State Commission, Chennai on the ground of inordinate delay of 8077 days in filing the said First Appeal. The State Commission, in its order held that “The lapse on the part of the opposite parties in not preferring the appeal within a reasonable time cannot be justified by any ample reason, and it could be considered only as a lethargic attitude and dereliction on the part of the Petitioner/Opposite Parties. Therefore, I am not inclined to dust off and open the case which had already concluded a decade ago. Accordingly, the Petition deserves to be dismissed. Though, I am inclined to impose heavy cost, on considering the reason that the petitioner/opposite party being a public organization, I refrain from doing so.” The Petitioner, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a statutory body formed under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ63 (SC), held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”

In the case of Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510 it was held that “The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

In the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649 the principles applicable to an application for condonation of delay are as follows: “There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants a strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. The conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.”

In the instant case, there was a delay of 8077 days, that is a period of nearly 23 years in filing the first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. The State Commission, in its order stated that such an inordinate delay in filing the said first appeal is a mockery of justice.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in CMP No. 103 of 2024 in FA Sr. No. 66 of 2024 is upheld.

The present Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.