BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD vs Raj Lakshmi Kumari

REVISION petition no. 1272 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ( ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal no. 486 of 2012.

THE petitioner/ opposite party for the first time had filed a revision petition on 22.09.2011 against the order dated 25.03.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gaya ( ''the District Forum ''), i.e., after about 1 1/2 years. Subsequently, it was held that since the order was final so revision was converted into an appeal which was duly accorded. While dismissing the appeal, the State Commission has observed as under: "We have gone through the impugned order passed on 25.03.2010 by the District Forum, Gaya, in consumer complaint no. 98 of 2007, whereby and where under the complaint filed by Raj Lakshmi Kumari against the Managing Director/ Revenue Officer and Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board have been finally disposed of and direction has been given to the Housing Board to execute and register the final deed in respect of LIG House no.164 Mustafabad, Rampur, District Gaya in favour of the complainant - Raj Lakshmi Kumari. Accordingly, the Housing Board was directed to execute and register the final deed in respect of LIG House no. 164 in favour of complainant within a period of three months of the passing of the order, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to get the order executed through the process of law at the cost of the OP. The impugned order also shows that the OPs were furnished verified photocopy on 19.11.2010. Now in the fact and circumstances, there is no ambiguity so far the finality of the order is concerned and there was only remedy for the aggrieved party to present appeal against the order. In such situation, if some revision is presented under wrong impression of law, there cannot be excuse of wrong redressal chosen by the Housing Board when they are equipped with distinguished and knowledgeable lawyers at different levels.

IT has been stated that after obtaining of the order impugned, the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Gaya Division has sent the certified copy of the order to the Legal Adviser of the Housing Board at the headquarter of the Housing Board at Patna on 10.12.2010, which was received in the Legal Section on 14.12.2010. The Legal Adviser of the Housing Board sent the order of the allotment section and revenue section and it was returned on 22.12.2010 and again proposal was sent before the Managing Director in respect of challenge the said order and opinion of the Manager, Estate was obtained. The Managing Director, thereafter, accepted the proposal of the Legal Adviser and sent the file to the Manager, Estate by the Legal Adviser for opinion and the record was returned by the Allotment Section to the Legal Section on 20.01.2011. As opinion was not clear, hence, the record was again sent to the allotment section on 21.01.2011 and after specific opinion, the file was sent by the allotment section to Legal Section on 28.02.2011. Thereafter, Legal Section sent the file to the Revenue Section on 03.03.2011 for calculation on the basis of order passed by the Consumer Forum, Gaya and Revenue Section returned the said file after calculation on 15.07.2011, i.e., after more than four months. The Legal Section sent the file to the Managing Director on 20.07.2011 seeking permission for filing revision before the State Commission on 21.07.2011. The permission was granted by the Managing Director and on 22.07.2011, the record was sent to the panel lawyer of the Housing Board for drafting of the revision application and the counsel for the Housing Board returned the same on 08.08.2011 after drafting the revision application. Thereafter, the Legal Section of the Housing Board sent the draft of revision to the allotment section on 09.08.2011 for verification and the allotment section returned the same on 10.08.2011 and the draft was sent to the revenue section on 24.08.2011 by the legal section and revenue section returned the same after verification on 30.08.2011. So according to the appellant, the above mentioned time was consumed in observing necessary paraphernalia and seeking instruction from the Board officials and their concerned legal experts. The Housing Board sent the draft of the revision application on 01.09.2011 along with the record to the Managing Director and the Managing Director accordingly approved the draft, which was received by the Legal Section on 06.09.2011 and signature of Managing Director was obtained on 22.09.2011.

THE aforesaid facts culminating in consuming such long spell of time, now should be considered as to whether it would amount to sufficient cause, which deterred or prevented the appellant - Bihar State Housing Board in presenting their appeal for setting aside the order passed in the month of March 2010 after lapse of about one and half years, i.e., in the month of September 2011. We would like to mention that any aggrieved party, who is supposed to be aware of the existing law is required to act in such a manner so that he could place or file necessary appeal/ revision etc., as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. The period of filing such revision is only three months whereas the appeal against the final order should have been filed within one month from the date of passing of the order/ knowledge or receipt of the order. Here, what we find is that the file seems to have been processed and scrutinized at various levels like, administrative, financial, legal besides opinion of legal expert also have been obtained but there does not appear any justification for retention of file for such a long period, which could be said to have prevented from presenting the appeal within time by the Housing Board. There should not be any laxity of law in such circumstances.

HAVING considered the aforesaid facts and grounds stated in the petition or canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant - Housing Board, we are unable to concede to his prayer so far condonation of delay in filing of the appeal is concerned. We have no hesitation to hold that the appellant could have been presented such appeal within stipulated time as required under the law but they did not act for such manner so as to comply the relevant provisions of law or order passed by the District Forum concerned.

IN the circumstances, we do hold that there is complete absence of any sufficient cause, which prevented the appellant from presenting their appeal in time, which is directed against final order, so question of treating a case of filing revision did not arise at any level. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and hence, the same stands rejected ".

HENCE , the present revision petition.

ALONG with the present revision petition an application for condonation of delay of 24 days have been filed. The reasons given for the delay in the condonation application are as follows: The copy of the impugned judgment and order was dispatched to the petitioner Board on 11.12.2012. The petitioner Board evaluated the impugned judgment and order and thereafter decided to file a revision petition against it. The petitioner Board thereafter sent the papers to their advocate in Delhi to prepare the revision petition vide its letter dated 04.01.2013.

UPON receipt of the papers, the advocate for the petitioner drafted the revision petition and sent the draft revision petition to the petitioner on 21.02.2013.

UPON receipt of the draft, the same was studied by the Legal Department and the Revenue Department of the Board and after verification of the contents, by letter dated 25.03.2013, the approved draft of petition along with affidavit and vakalatnama was sent to the advocate at Delhi. The packet containing the approved draft was received by the advocate for the petitioners on 30.03.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Government organisation and every document sent to the petitioner has to be carefully scrutinised by various departments to see that there is no error in the documents. Therefore, by the very nature of scrutiny than by the petitioner, the verification and approval of documents took some time. In these facts and circumstances the petitioner prays that the delay in filing the petition may be condoned.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

IT is seen that even after receiving the order of the State Commission where it has commented adversely on the in ordinate time taken for processing and scrutiny at various levels before filing the appeal the petitioner has pleaded the same reasons once again before this Commission to explain the delay in filing the revision petition. There are huge gaps at different times and levels of processing which have been left unexplained. Repeated delays by the petitioner before the State Commission as also the National Commission cannot merely be excused and condoned on the grounds that the petitioner is a Government Organisation. Petitioner has failed to put in place a system where such cases can be dealt with efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner. The petitioners have failed to give the reasons for the day to day delay. The petitioner has failed to provide ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 24 days. This view is further supported by the following authorities:

THE apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been 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 Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (Civil Appeal no. 1166 of 2006), decided by the Apex Court on 08.07.2010 it was held: "The party should show that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the Court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention. [Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition, 2005] ".

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. "

SIMILARLY , in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi and Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45, it has been laid down that; "There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benevolence. "

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. "

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; "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; "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. 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 land losers 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 land losers. 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 land losers 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; "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. 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.

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. 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.

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 respondent but have dragged him 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.

ACCORDINGLY , we find that there is no ''sufficient cause '' to condone the delay of 24 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees twenty thousand only). Petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/ by way of demand draft directly in the name of Respondent and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/ be deposited in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission '' within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 22nd November, 2013 for compliance.