AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs Bhagga

STATE Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short, ''State Commission ''), vide common impugned order dated 7.4.2011, has disposed of Appeals Nos.1297, 1280 -1282 and 1284 -1285 of 2010 filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties.

BEING aggrieved, Petitioners have filed above revision petitions. Since, facts are identical and common question of law is involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Facts of Revision Petition ( No.329 of 2012 - Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others Vs. Bhagga ) shall be taken as the lead case.

RESPONDENT /Complainant had filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act '') before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (for short, ''District Forum '') praying for quashing of the electricity bills which had been issued illegally by the petitioners.

THE consumer complaint was contested by the petitioners. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent and quashed the impugned notice.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed appeals before the State Commission, which dismissed the same vide the impugned order.

NOW , petitioners have filed these revision petitions. Alongwith them, applications seeking condonation of delay ranging from 77 days to 203 days have also been filed. We have heard arguments on the applications for condonation of delay.

IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that delay in filing is due to office procedure as certain vital documents were not supplied to the counsel. That is why, there was some delay and the same should be condoned.

RELEVANT grounds of which condonation of delay has been sought are reproduced as under; ''''3. That the aforesaid Appeal in this case was disposed of by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan by order dated 7.4.2011 copy of which was received in the office of the Petitioners in last week of May, 2011. Thereafter, the same was sent to the Office of the Company Secretary who in turn sent the files for legal opinion to the law department of the Petitioners Corporation. Upon receipt of the opinion of the legal department which advised for filing of Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Commission. The authorized officer of the Corporation contacted the undersigned and sent file of the case in first week of July. 2011.

It is submitted that some of the vital documents have not supplied to the undersigned so he informed and requested for providing those documents. The same documents were provided by the Petitioners in last week of August, 2011. Thereafter, the undersigned sought some clarifications from the Petitioners and prepared a draft which was sent for approval and vetting to the Petitioners which took some time. 5. It is further stated that the all the documents and order of the District Forum and Appeal before the learned State Commission are in Hindi. It also took time to get it translated in English. In these circumstances a delay of _____days occurred in filing the Revision Petition which is totally unintentional and bona fide.

The petitioner most respectfully state and submit that the impugned order is totally illegal and without jurisdiction and as such cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, if the same is allowed to stand only on the grounds of not approaching this Hon''ble Commission at an earlier date then an illegal order shall become final which would cause financial loss to the Government Exchequer as well the Corporation of public company and its ramification would be bad for the Government Exchequer as well as the Corporation. 7. In the aforesaid circulation it is necessary that if at all it is considered that the Petition has been filed beyond limitation provided under the ordinary law of limitation, the same be condoned. ''''

The impugned order was passed on 7.4.2011. As per petitioners '' case, the same was received in their office in the last week of May, 2011. Petitioners have not mentioned any specific date, when it was received. However, as per endorsement made on the certified copy of the impugned order, the copy was delivered on 28.4.2011. So, the petitioners for the reasons best known to them, have not mentioned the specific date on which the certified copy of the impugned order was received by them.

BE that as it may, petitioners have nowhere mentioned as to on which date the file was sent to the office of Company Secretary and on which date he in turn sent the same for legal opinion to the law department and when the file was received from the legal department. It is nowhere mentioned in the application as to what documents were required by the counsel. Even otherwise, as per averments made in the application, the documents were provided to the counsel in August, 2011, whereas the revision petitions were filed only on 24.1.2012.

UNDER these circumstances, there is no explanation for delay which had taken place at the different level in the office of the petitioners. Interestingly, petitioners have not mentioned the name of any of the officials who had been dealing with the matter at different stages. Application is absolutely silent on these material points. It would also be pertinent to point out that in some of the applications for condonation of delay, even period of delay has not been mentioned.. It is well settled that ''''sufficient cause '''' for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

INRAM Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 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, it has been 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 after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; ''''We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC 106 ''''.

APEX Courtin AnshulAggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed ; ''''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 filingappeals 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; ''''24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;

''''29.It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time -limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

30.Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts'' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. ''''

The Court further observed; ''''27.It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 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.

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 ''''.

Observations made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

EVEN , after getting two adverse findings, petitioners have chosen not to settle the claim of the respondents but have tried to drag them to the highest fora under the Act.

IT is not that every order passed by fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same are based on sound reasoning. It is a well -known fact that Courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public Sector Undertakings indulgences further burden them. Time and again, Courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Government/Public Sector Undertakings compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Sector Undertaking not only when it pursue cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so.

PUBLIC Sector Undertakings spent more money on contesting cases than the amount they might have to pay to the claimant. In addition thereto, precious time, effort and other resources go down the drain in vain. Public Sector Undertakings are possibly an apt example of being penny wise, pound -foolish. Rise in frivolous litigation is also due to the fact that Public Sector Undertakings though having large number of legal personnel under their employment, do not examine the cases properly and force poor litigants to approach the Court.

IN RavinderKaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed: '''' Courtsof law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law ''s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. ''''

Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the petitioners. Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the long delay ranging from 77 days to 203 days, in filing these petitions. The applications for condonation of delay, under these circumstances are not maintainable and present revision petitions being barred by limitation are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/ -(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in each case.

PETITIONERS are directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account '', within four weeks from today.

MEANWHILE , petitioners shall recover the cost amount from the salaries of the delinquent officers who have been pursuing these petitions with the sole aim of wasting the public exchequer. The affidavit giving the details of the officers/officials from whose salaries the cost has been recovered, be also filed within four weeks. Pending applications, if any stand disposed of.

LIST on 9.5.2014 for compliance.