This revision petition is directed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, “State Commission”) dated 9.7.2013 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.1031 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner/Authority for non-prosecution.

2.      The revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation with a delay of 247 days.  Revision petition is, thus, accompanied by the application for condonation of delay.

3.      The explanation for the delay in filing of the revision petition is given in para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced thus :-

“A. That the petitioner herein respectfully states that they came to know about the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 passed by State Commission on 2.9.2013 which was received in the office of the petitioner.  The certified copy of the order dated 9.7.2013 was prepared on 22.8.2013 and sent by the Ld. Commission to the petitioner’s office vide registered post on 23.8.2013.

B.      That thereafter the petitioner’s officials recommended to prefer petition/appeal in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi thereafter the Secretary of the petitioner – authority recommended for legal opinion with regard to filing of petition/appeal in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.

C.      That in April, the counsel was appointed, the petitioner authority received legal opinion and thereafter proposal for approval of filing petition/appeal from Vice-Chairman of the petitioner authority was put up by Secretary the approval for preferring appeal/revision petition before this Hon’ble Commission against the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 was granted.

D.      That 3.5.2014, the counsel for the petitioner received the reason for the delay in preferring this Hon’ble Commission with explanation that the then suit clerk did not acted as per direction up to 29.3.2014 thereby causing delay, for which a show cause notice dated 25.4.2014 was issued by the petitioner/authority.

E.      That thereafter the records and file pertaining to the present case were sent to the office of the advocate for the petitioner.  The documents annexed to this revision petition are in Hindi and its English translation, its drafting and vetting consumed considerable time. Hence, an unintentional delay has occasioned due to reason stated in above praras in preferring the accompanying revision petition.”

4.      Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred on account of negligence on the part of the suit clerk of the petitioner/authority.  It is further contended that the petitioner has a very good case on merit.  If the delay is not condoned, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injustice.

5.      There is no merit in the submission made by the petitioner.  Perusal of record would show that the petitioner has been grossly negligent in conduct of this case.

6.      The impugned order of the State Commission reads as under :-

 “Today the record is perused. No one was present on behalf of the appellant.  On 2.3.2012, learned advocate of respondent Shri Jyotish Chander Pandey were present.  Time for rectifying the errors in their appeal has been granted to Shri A.K.Choubey but till today error have not been rectified.  It seems that appellant is no more  interested in this appeal.  Therefore, the appeal is rejected due to non-appearance of the appellant.”

7.      On reading of the above, it is clear that the appeal preferred by the petitioner/authority before the State Commission was defective and the counsel for the petitioner (appellant) was given time by the State Commission to rectify the errors in the appeal.  The petitioner instead of rectifying the defects in the appeal, opted not to appear on hearing fixed for  9.7.2013 and this led to dismissal of the appeal due to non-prosecution.

8.      Despite that, the petitioner was careless in moving to the National Commission in revision.  On perusal of the record, it transpires that the application for condonation of delay has been signed under the signatures of the authorized officer of the petitioner authority as well as the counsel.  In this application, the period of delay is not quantified.  Instead a blank space has been left to mention the exact period of delay in filing of the revision petition.  From this it is obvious that application of condonation of delay has been drafted in a mechanical manner and the concerned officer of the petitioner Authority has signed the same without reading the same.

9.      The law relating to the condonation of delay is well settled.   The petitioner seeking condonation of delay is required to explain each and every day of delay to the satisfaction of the Court / Tribunal concerned.  We are conscious that while dealing with the application of condonation of delay, the Courts / Tribunals are expected to have a liberal approach but this does not mean that the petitioner seeking condonation of delay can get away with the gross negligence in pursuing the matter.

  In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant”.

            In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has observed ;

 “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.

  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down 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”.

               Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held:

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 bonafide, 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 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 bonafide 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 government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.

31. In view of our conclusion on Issue (a), there is no need to go into the merits of Issues (b) and (c). The question of law raised is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.  

32.  In the light of the above discussion, the appeals fail and are dismissed on the ground of delay. No order as to costs.”

10.    The explanation given for delay in filing the application for condonation of delay is that the petitioner got certified copy of the impugned order much later on 02.09.2013.  Even if the period of limitation is computed from the above said date, the revision petition to be within limitation should have been filed by 31.12.2013.  The revision petition, however, has been filed on 05.08.2014.  The petitioner has tried to explain the aforesaid delay by taking a plea that sometime was consumed in obtaining approval in filing the revision petition and on 03.05.2014, the papers were sent to the counsel for filing of the revision petition.  The revision petition, has been filed even after period of 90 days from 03.05.2014 for which the explanation given is that time was consumed for obtaining the English translation of the documents in vernacular.  This explanation is highly vague and unacceptable.

11.    From the above,  it is clear that the petitioner was al-through has been grossly negligent in pursuing this matter.  Therefore, we do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay of 247 days in filing of revision petition.

12.    In view of the discussion above, application for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.

No order as to costs.