GORAKHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY Vs SMT.RAJPATI DEVI W/O SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by Gorakhpur Development Authority, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, against the order, dated 27.08.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1503 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while observing that the Petitioner herein has failed to make out "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of four months in filing of the Appeal, has dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.

The Appeal had been filed against the order, dated 21.02.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Gorakhpur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 83 of 2008, vide which the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, had directed the Petitioner Authority to receive 52,426/- from the Complainant and execute the Sale Deed in respect of the house allotted in her favour.

While arriving at the said conclusion, the District Forum had taken into consideration the following facts: The Complainant had applied for allotment of a house in Rapti Nagar Janta Scheme at Gorakhpur, floated by the Petitioner Authority, under Economically Weaker Section, which was stated to be valued at 52,230/-. On 31.01.1995, the Complainant had paid the registration fee of 5,230/-, being 10% of the total cost of the house applied for. Accordingly, a residential house, i.e. EWS No.125, Phase-IV, Rapti Nagar, was allotted to the Complainant. As per the terms and conditions of installment, after payment of 13,500/- by the Complainant, possession of the said house was delivered to her. Remaining amount, including interest, was to be paid to the Petitioner in ten years @ 610/- per month. As on 17.10.2007, though the Complainant had paid a total sum of 1,13,731/- but the Sale Deed in respect of the aforesaid house was not executed by the Petitioner, despite her requests in this behalf. On 11.02.2008, the Petitioner issued the notice for eviction to the Complainant. Hence, the Complaint before the District Forum.

Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, as noted above, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaint, issued the afore-stated directions to the Petitioner.

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of four months. An Application praying for condonation of the said delay had been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs no. 2 to 7, the explanation furnished for the delay was as under: "2. That the learned District Consumer Forum passed the impugned Judgment and order on 21.02.2015 and the application for copy of the order was applied on 26.02.2015 and the same received the counsel for the appellant.

That when the department came into knowledge about, the said order, the matter was referred to the counsel for legal opinion for filing of appeal before the Hon''ble Commission.

That after receiving the legal opinion the matter was referred to the Vice Chairman for filing of appeal before the Hon''ble Commission at Lucknow.

That the matter was pending for permission regarding filing of appeal.

That for a long period the post of Vice Chairman was vacant.

That there is delay of 3 months in filing the present appeal because of the departmental proceeding. There is no delay of knowingly or willingly in filing the present appeal."

The State Commission having held that the afore-extracted explanation does not make out a sufficient cause, we are required to consider whether the State Commission has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it for condoning the delay and in the process committed a jurisdictional error?

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the said question.

Bearing in mind the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, viz., ''sufficient cause'' cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that the afore-extracted explanation does not make out a sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of four months in filing of the Appeal.

Admittedly, the certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum had been received by the Petitioner on 26.02.2015. Bearing in mind the statutory period available under Section 15 of the Act for filing the Appeal, the Petitioner was expected to take prompt action in the matter but it was not so. Due to the carelessness on the part of the Petitioner, the Appeal, which was required to be filed within a period of thirty days, was filed on 27.07.2015, i.e. after inordinate delay of four months. The application, seeking condonation of the said delay, is conspicuously silent about the date-wise developments in connection with processing of the matter at the Petitioner''s end. The averments made in the application that after receiving the copy of the impugned order, the matter was referred to the Counsel for legal opinion; after receiving the legal opinion, the matter was referred to the Vice Chairman; and the post of Vice Chairman was vacant, in the absence of any date-wise developments in the matter, is a classic example of an indifferent attitude and laxity on the part of the Petitioner. It cannot be accepted that due to non-filling up of the post of Vice Chairman, the functioning of the Petitioner Authority would have come to a standstill. There would be a number of officers working in the Petitioner Authority, who must be taking important decisions in the absence of the Vice Chairman. However, except for the afore-stated bald explanation, there is not even a whisper by the Petitioner as to how the said delay occasioned in processing the matter at its end.

The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the 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."

In the instant case, the Petitioner, being a government instrumentality, ought to have acted in the matter prudently and diligently. If at all it was really interested in pursuing the matter at the higher Forums, instead of processing the matter in routine, it ought to have been on its toes to ensure that the order, passed against it by the District Forum, was challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. Clearly, the Petitioner was negligent in prosecuting its cause and the explanation furnished by it lacked bonafides as well. We are also of the view that condonation of delay in this case would cause unnecessary harassment to the Complainant, who, despite having parted with considerable amount, for over two decades, is still waiting for the execution of the Sale Deed by the Petitioner.

Bearing in mind the afore-stated facts, we are of the view that the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, was fully justified in declining to condone the inordinate delay of four months caused in filing of the Appeal and in dismissing the same on the ground of limitation. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction under the Act.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails is dismissed in limine.