Aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 627 of 2007, Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction. The appeal before the State Commission was filed after an undue delay of 187 days and application for condonation of delay was filed setting up the sole ground that the undue delay was occasioned due to obtaining the sanction of the prescribed authority for filing the appeal. The State Commission has fully dealt with the matter and declined to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the appellant and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Even after doing so the State Commission has examined the correctness and legality of the order passed by the District Forum and by a reasoned order found that the order passed by the District Forum was well founded on the facts and deserve no intervention. 2. We have heard Mr. Vishwajit Singh, counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. In our view, the petitioner was not well advised to challenge the well-reasoned order of the State Commission which was strictly in accordance with the settled legal position. The grounds set-up for condonation of delay set-up by the petitioner before the State Commission to say the least did not afford a sufficient cause within the meaning. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the State Commission while dismissing the appeal. We see no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the onsumer Legal Aid Accountof this Commission within a period of four weeks from today. However, it would be open for the petitioner parishad to realise the cost imposed by us from the concerned officer(s) who were responsible for causing the delay as high as 187 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission, after fixing the responsibility in that behalf.