1.       By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), Lucknow Development Authority (for short “the Development Authority”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.09.2014, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1671 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Development Authority, as barred by limitation, as there was a delay of over five months in filing the same, for which, according to the State Commission, no sufficient cause was shown. 

2.       The Appeal had been preferred by the Development Authority against the order dated 31.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Lucknow (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 620 of 2009.  By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, the District Forum had directed the Development Authority to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹4,16,188/-, stated to be overcharged by it from the Complainant, within two months from the date of the said order, with simple interest @ 9% p.a.  Besides, the Development Authority was also directed to pay to the Complainant a further sum of ₹10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and ₹3,000/- towards the litigation costs.  By way of default stipulation, interest @ 12% was also awarded in favour of the Complainant.

3.       On 16.06.1984 the Complainant had applied for a house with the Development Authority under its Self-Financing Scheme for Journalists.  On payment of a sum of ₹12,000/-, he was allotted a house on 22.09.1984.  On further payment of ₹6,000/- on 28.01.1985, the possession was handed over to the Complainant in 1988.  Subsequently, the Complainant paid the monthly instalments regularly.  Several times the Complainant enquired from the Development Authority about the final amount to be paid by him for getting the house registered in his name but of no avail.  Suddenly, on 24.06.2008 the Complainant received a letter from the Development Authority, informing him that the final costing of the house had been done and a sum of ₹12,00,086/- was required to be paid by him by 31.07.2008, failing which penal interest would be charged.  On his showing receipts for the amounts already deposited, the demand against the cost of the house was reduced by the Development Authority to ₹9,37,362/-.  Between the period 22.07.2008 and 24.10.2008 the Complainant deposited a sum of ₹8,00,000/- with the Development Authority.  On 16.12.2008, as requested by him, the Complainant received a copy of the statement of accounts, which showed that the Development Authority had overcharged him to the tune of ₹4,16,188/-. Despite several requests, including a legal notice, dated 18.04.2009, to different government/departmental functionaries, the said amount was not returned to the Complainant.  In the said background, alleging unfair trade practice and misappropriation of his money by the Development Authority, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, wherein the Complainant had sought certain reliefs, mentioned in the Complaint.     

4.       Upon notice, the Development Authority contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.    

5.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-noted directions to the Development Authority.

6.       Aggrieved, the Development Authority carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission, with a delay of over five months.  As noted above, the said delay was not explained by the Development Authority to the satisfaction of the State Commission and, hence, vide the order impugned in this Revision Petition, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal as barred by limitation.    

7.       Hence, the present Revision Petition.

8.       It is pointed out by the Office that this Revision Petition is also barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 525 days in filing the same. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Revision Petition.  In paragraphs 4 – 13 of the said Application, the Development Authority has furnished the following explanation:  

“4.      It is submitted that thereafter the Order dated 22.9.2014 was communicated by the Hon’ble State Commission vide notice dated 23.6.2015 which was received in the office of the Lucknow Development Authority on 6.7.2015.  …

5.       That immediately opinion was sought on 5.8.2015, for preferring a Revision Petition against the impugned order.  That accordingly on 6.8.2015, Smt. Nimmi Srivastav, Advocate gave her opinion for preferring the Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Commission.

6.       That on the basis of the opinion, the Chief Legal Advisor issued direction on 11.8.2015 for filing the Revision Petition.

7.       That thereafter the file was sent to the Competent Authority i.e. the Secretary of the Authority on 17.8.2015 seeking his approval for filing Revision.  That the approval was accorded by the Secretary only on 20.08.2015.

8.       That thereafter erstwhile nominated Counsel was nominated as Authority’s Counsel on 25.8.2015 for preferring the present Revision Petition and the case file was made available to the erstwhile nominated Counsel on 8.12.2015.  However, the erstwhile nominated Counsel, neither filed the revision petition nor returned the case records/file to the Authority, as a result thereof, engagement/appointment of erstwhile nominated Counsel was cancelled by the Authority, while getting the original record/file back from him.  That thereafter the nomination of erstwhile nominated Counsel has been withdrawn.

9.       Thereafter on 30.11.2016, the undersigned counsel was nominated as the counsel for the revisionist herein and on 9.12.2016 the file was handed over to the undersigned.

10.     That after perusal of the file the undersigned counsel vide its letter dated 2.2.2017, has given opinion in the matter for the reason of huge unexplained delay caused in preferring the revision petition.

11.     That on such opinion on 6.2.2017, the revisionist – authority then provided the explanation of delay.

12.     Thereafter it took some time in drafting the petition, translations etc.

13.     That the affidavit in the present petition was received by the undersigned on 25.2.2016.”   

9.       We have heard learned Counsel for the Development Authority on the question of delay.  

10.     At the outset, it may be noted that in the Appeal filed on its behalf, the Development Authority was duly represented by its Counsel.  After hearing the arguments of the said Counsel, the impugned order was passed by the State Commission, on 22.09.2014.  Since the impugned order was passed in favour of the Complainant, the Development Authority must have been informed about the same by its Counsel and, in case it was not so, since the Appeal had been filed by the Development Authority, it was required to keep a watch in the matter.  However, there is no indication in the Application on these aspects of the matter and it is pretended as if the Development Authority was not aware of the said order.  In such a situation, if a copy of the impugned order was not received by the Development Authority within a reasonable period, it could have approached the State Commission, without waiting for over nine months, inasmuch as admittedly the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Development Authority on 06.07.2015.  After receipt of the same, the Development Authority took one month in getting the opinion from its Counsel.  Though, after due departmental procedures, on 25.08.2015 the erstwhile Counsel was nominated for filing the Revision Petition before this Commission, but the Development Authority took over three months in making available the case file to the said Counsel, on 08.12.2015. The Application is conspicuously silent as to the period during which the said Counsel did not take any action in the matter and the date when his nomination was cancelled/withdrawn.  Evidently, after assignment of the matter to the erstwhile Counsel on 08.12.2015, for almost one year the Development Authority did not enquire from him about the status of the Revision Petition to be filed and it was only on 30.11.2016 that, after cancelling the earlier nomination of the erstwhile Counsel, it assigned the matter to the present Counsel and handed over the case file to him on 09.12.2016.  Though, at the said time, the Revision Petition to be filed was already barred by limitation, yet the new Counsel also took more than 1½ months in asking for the explanation for the delay, which was furnished to him on 25.02.2017, and it was only then that the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission on 27.02.2017, with an inordinate delay of 525 days.  The lethargy on the part of the Development Authority gets compounded by the fact that even the Appeal filed by it before the State Commission was barred by certain delay, for which also no sufficient cause had been shown by the Development Authority, leaving no option with the State Commission but to dismiss the Appeal as barred by limitation.         

11.     The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts.  In Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under :

“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 bona fides, 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 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 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”                                                       (emphasis supplied)

12.     In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Development Authority has miserably failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 525 days in filing the present Revision Petition.  In our view, condonation of the said delay would cause further unwarranted harassment to the Complainant, who, despite having orders in his favour from the Forums below, is still not able to get the refund of the money overcharged from him by the Development Authority sometimes in the year 2008.  Accordingly, we are not inclined to condone the said delay.                      

13.     Resultantly, the Revision Petition is dismissed on the short ground of limitation.