Gorakhpur Development Authority vs Girja Prasad Rai

THIS Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Gorakhpur Development Authority, the Opposite Party, against order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1163 of 2003, preferred by it. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeal, filed against order dated 05.04.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Gorakhpur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 350 of 1999, for non -prosecution. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, had directed the Petitioner Authority to charge the Complainant in respect of Flat No. 71 EWS, admeasuring 62.08 sq. meters, for the cost of the plot, corner charges and freehold charges, prevalent at the time of the allotment.

IT is pointed out by the office that this Revision Petition is barred by limitation, as there is inordinate delay of 924 days in filing the same. However, the Petitioner Authority contends that there is delay of only 210 days from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the Revision Petition. In paragraphs 3A to G of the said application, the explanation furnished is as under: "3. That the facts in brief are stated as under for explanation of delay caused in filing the accompanying Revision Petition:

That the petitioner herein respectfully states that they came to know about the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 passed by State Commission in the month of April, 2014 after the execution was filed for order for compliance before the District Forum. Thereafter, the counsel for the Appellant filed application for stay of the execution proceeding in Execution No. 48/2003. The certified copy of the order dated 19.04.2012 was applied and which was prepared on 03.07.2014 and thereafter received by the petitioner''s office.

That thereafter the petitioner''s officials recommended to prefer petition/appeal in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi thereafter the Secretary of the petitioner authority recommended for legal opinion with regard to filing of petition/appeal in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi.

That the petitioner authority received legal opinion and thereafter proposal for approval of filing petition/appeal from Vice -Chairman of the petitioner authority was put up by Secretary the approval for preferring appeal/revision petition before this Hon''ble Commission against the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 was granted.

That 29.09.2014 the counsel for the petitioner received the file for preferring Revision Petition before this Hon''ble Commission. That after going through the file it was revealed that the copy of appeal filed before the Hon''ble State Commission is not available with the records. Thereafter the Counsel vide email dated 14.10.2014 communicated the petitioner and asked for the same. The petitioner authority then after arranging the copy of said appeal sent it to Delhi which was received by its counsel on 22.10.2014.

That the legible and clear certified copy of the District Forum order was also required vide email dated 04.11.2014 sent by the Advocate for the petitioner. The draft of the Revision Petition was also received in the petitioner''s office and due to transfer of concerned Official Clerk for obtaining the certified copies and the progress in this regard was considerably delayed upto 09.01.2015.

The final draft of the Revision Petition and certified copies were sent through Authorized Signatory on 13.01.2015, who delivered the documents as stated above and met the counsel for the Petitioner in Delhi on 14.01.2015 who signed and verified the present Petition on 15.01.2015.

That the documents annexed to this Revision Petition are in Hindi and its English translation, its drafting and vetting consumed considerable time. Hence, an unintentional."

WE have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner Authority on the question of delay. In our view, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner Authority is wholly unsatisfactory. The contention that the Petitioner Authority was not aware of the impugned order dated 19.04.2012 and came to know about the same only in April 2014, i.e. after a lapse of two years, when the Complainant had initiated execution proceedings against it before the District Forum, is not at all convincing. It is true that the Petitioner''s Appeal had been dismissed for non -prosecution since nobody had put in appearance on its behalf before the State Commission but we are unable to appreciate as to why the Petitioner Authority kept quiet for two years and did not try to ascertain the status of the Appeal. However, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in fact the Petitioner Authority came to know about the impugned order only in April 2014, we find that even thereafter it acted in the matter without any element of seriousness. It took three months in applying and getting a certified copy of the impugned order issued from the State Commission and further almost three months in taking a decision and assigning the matter to its Advocate for filing a Revision Petition before this Commission. The Petitioner Authority also took considerable time in furnishing necessary documents to its Counsel; getting the documents in vernacular translated in English; drafting/vetting of the documents etc. and finally in filing the Revision Petition before this Commission on 28.01.2015 and not on 15.01.2015, as contended by it.

THE Petitioner, being a government instrumentality, ought to have acted like a prudent and diligent litigant and its conduct while dealing with pending court matters, in which it had been burdened with some liability, must show that it was so. However, from the above facts, it is clear that the Petitioner Authority has throughout been negligent in prosecuting its cause. Such casual and indifferent attitude on the part of the government functionaries has been deprecated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Limited And Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563.

THE submission on behalf of the Petitioner Authority that the delay in filing the present Revision Petition deserves to be condoned since it has, prima facie, good case and the same has not been considered on merits by the State Commission, is also stated to be rejected. There is a catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, including in D. Gopinathan Pillai V. State of Kerala and Anr., 2007 2 SCC 322, wherein it has been held that inordinate delay in taking recourse to appropriate remedy cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds.

BEARING in mind the afore -stated facts and the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 14 SCC 578 to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 924 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.

CONSEQUENTLY , the Revision Petitions is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.