CHIEF OFFICER, NAGPUR HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BAPU VITTHAL SHASTRAKAR & 3 ORS.

These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), have been filed by the Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board), Nagpur, Maharashtra, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints, against a common order, dated 24.08.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 397 to 408 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while modifying the direction given by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nagpur (for short "the District Forum"), whereby the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to get sanction of the layout plan of the plots in question, has partly allowed the Appeals. In the opinion of the State Commission, since State Highway No. 344, which was declared as the National Highway No. 353C as per GR dated 05.09.2014 of the Government of India, was abutting the plots in dispute, the said direction of the District Forum was unexecutable;

there was no fault on the part of the Complainants in not getting sanction of the layout plan; it was the fault on the part of the Petitioner in not getting sanction of the layout plan before giving public advertisement and in ignoring the conditions about leaving the space adjoining to the highway; and, therefore, the Complainants were entitled to the reasonable compensation in lieu of the plots and penalty. Consequently, while substituting the said direction with a direction to the Petitioner to pay a compensation of 1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of respective Complaints till realization, towards the loss suffered by them due to cancellation of the Scheme of the plots by the Petitioner, the State Commission maintained the remaining directions of the District Forum, viz., the Petitioner shall pay further compensation of 4000/- and cost of 1000/- to each of the Complainants; and the Complaints shall stand dismissed as against Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4, i.e. Respondents No. 2 to 4 in these Revision Petitions.

The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioner against 12 identical orders, all dated 07.12.2007, passed by the District Forum in Complaints No. 47 to 58 of 2007, filed by the Complainants. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-stated directions.

Still, not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, in the afore-noted Appeals, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority is before us in the present Revision Petitions.

It is pointed out by the office that all the Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 79 days in filing the same. Identical applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, have been filed alongwith the Revision Petitions. In paragraphs no. 3 to 10 of the said applications, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation: "3. The Petitioner respectfully submits that there is some delay in filing the above Revision Petition against the Impugned Order/judgment dated 24.08.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra - Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur which is explained hereinbelow.

The Petitioner''s Counsel in State Commission Shri Hitesh N. Verma gave his opinion dated 19.12.2015 stating that the Hon''ble State Commission failed to take into consideration the factual aspects involved in the matter besides legal infirmities and advised the Petitioner Board to challenge the Impugned Order/judgment dated 24.08.2015 before the National Commission at the earliest. ?

That, after receiving the certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission, the same was forwarded to the legal department of the Petitioner. The said department thereafter sought opinion of the counsel who conducted the matter before the Learned Forum. It was opined by the counsel that the order passed by the Forum below is improper and has been passed exceeding its jurisdiction and also suffers from legal errors and infirmities and therefore, it was advised to file Revision Petition challenging the said order. Accordingly, the facts along with copy of judgment and the opinion were forwarded to the concerned office at Mumbai, to take further necessary steps.

The petitioners being the office bearers of MHADA which is a public institution are governed by the Rules and regulations and are bound to follow various administrative procedures and have to obtain several hierarchical approvals. Accordingly, following the due procedure and after proper scrutiny of the subject matter and the issues involved in the same, necessary sanctions and approvals were accorded by the concerned authority and the same was received by the Nagpur Board. The same was thereafter sent to the legal department for taking necessary steps for filing of the Revision Petition.

That the case papers were sent by the Bombay office of the Petitioner Authority, which is the parent Body to the lawyers at New Delhi for the purpose of filing of the Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Commission on 2.2.2016. After going through the papers received by the lawyers, the Petitioner was asked to send complete papers as the papers received were not sufficient. Also translation of various documents were called for. The most important of which was the orders of the District Forum. The said lawyers then prepared the draft petition to be filed before this Hon''ble Commission and sent it by email to the Petitioner board as well as the Authority on 07.03.2016.

That the certified copy and translated copies of the Judgments/orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was received by the present counsel only on 10.03.2016, who had thereafter made further changes in the present Revision Petition.

It is submitted that the notarized affidavits and vakalatnamas pertaining to current matter were sent to the Counsel at Delhi by the Petitioner Board only in the second week of March, 2016.

It is submitted that the compilation of the papers pertaining to the Revision Petition alongwith the consultancy with the Govt. Department and inter-governmental decisions making for considering of filing the present

Revision Petition has taken some time on account of which the inadvertent delay has occurred, which is neither deliberate nor intentional and hence the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice."

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.

In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory. Though in the Appeals, wherein the Petitioner was duly represented by its Counsel, the State Commission had passed the impugned order on 24.08.2015, yet for about one and a half months the Petitioner/its Counsel did not take any steps to obtain the certified copy of the same . The said copy had been obtained from the State Commission only on 06.10.2015, where-after the Petitioner took further one and a half months in scrutinizing the case and obtaining the opinion of its Counsel , which had been furnished by the Counsel on 19.12.2015. After considering the matter at different levels for about further one and a half months, soliciting sanctions and approvals, for which no specific dates have been indicated in the application, the Petitioner sent the relevant papers to the parent office at Mumbai for filing of the Revision Petitions before this Commission on 02.02.2016, i.e. more than five months of the date of the impugned order . Thereafter, the application is again conspicuously silent about the dates when the matter was assigned by the Petitioner to its Counsel; when the Counsel asked for complete papers; how much time was consumed in getting translation of the documents etc. In the absence of these details, it can safely be inferred that even after obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order the Petitioner was not at all interested in challenging the impugned order, whereby certain liability had been fastened upon it. Bearing in mind the limited period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 for filing the Revision Petition, the Petitioner was expected to pursue the matter at its end diligently, which is not the case here. The Petitioner did not show any sense of urgency and seriousness in processing the file expeditiously to ensure that the Revision Petitions were filed within time. We have no hesitation in holding that the explanation furnished is an example of indifferent and lax attitude on the part of the Petitioner, which is a government instrumentality. The Petitioner has failed to make out a ''sufficient cause'' for condonation of inordinate delay of 79 days, caused in filing of the present Revision Petitions.

Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon''ble 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.

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."

For all these reasons, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 79 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions, more so, when condonation of such delay would cause further harassment to the Complainants, who, after waiting for the plots for over a decade, have now been told that the entire Scheme has to be scrapped because of conversion of the State Highway into a National Highway.

Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.