HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs A. Ram Naik

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana Panchkula dated 20.12.2011 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the order of the District Forum Panchkula which reads as under: The instant complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are hereby directed:

a. To pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount deposited before 07.05.1998 w.e.f. 07.05.1998 till 14.05.2001 and on the amount deposited after 7.5.98 w.e.f. the date of deposit till 14.5.01; and

b. Also to pay Rs. 1000/ - as cost of proceedings.

Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from today.

THE revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of 90 days of period of limitation as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 with the delay of 112 days as per the Registry and 108 days as per the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay. The explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition is given in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay which is reproduced thus: That after receipt of the copy of the impugned order from the counsel for the petitioner, the same was analysed by the petitioner in view of the financial implications and policy issues involved therein. Considering the importance of the matter, it was thereafter decided by the petitioner that revision petition may be filed challenging the orders passed by the forums below. Hence, necessary approvals were taken for filing the said revision petition. The governmental procedures in respect of seeking sanctions, collecting relevant documents form concerned departments and preparing and filing the present revision petition has resulted in unavoidable delay of 108 days, which is unintentional, unavoidable and highly regretted.

LD . Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is a government organization and it has nothing to gain by filing the revision petition. It is further argued that petitioner has a strong case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner would suffer grave injustice. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Nagaland V. Lipok Ao : (2005) 3 SCC 752, Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. : 1987 Supp. SCC 685 and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy : (1998) 7 SCC 123.

WE have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The explanation for delay given by the petitioner is far from satisfactory. On reading the above noted explanation, we find that it is highly vague and the delay is attributed to the bureaucratic procedures which work at snail''s pace. Thus, we find no reason to condone the delay. Before adverting to the explanation given for the delay, it would be useful to have a look on the law relating to condonation of delay. In the matter of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:

Experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note -making, file -pushing, and passing -on -the -buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. The State which represents collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant -non -grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to scuttle a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal.

It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay -intentional or otherwise -is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red -tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice -oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day''s delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice -oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit.

SIMILARLY in the matters of Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. (supra) and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (supra), the Supreme Court has highlighted the need of liberal approach while dealing with the request for condonation of delay and emphasized that the purpose of law of limitation is to ensure that the parties to the litigation should be vigilant and prompted in pursuing their case and the purpose is not to shut the doors of justice to a litigant who has a meritorious case.

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.

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, : 2009 (2) Scale 108 Apex Court has 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 in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV : (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) laid down 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.

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: 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.

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.

On reading of the above judgments, it is clear that law relating to condonation of delay in filing the petition is well settled. The petitioner seeking condonation is required to explain each and every day of delay. Although the Hon''ble Supreme Court has cautioned that while dealing with the application of condonation of delay, the Courts should take liberal approach, yet the litigant is expected to be vigilant in pursuing his case. If the petitioner is found to be grossly negligent in conduct of the proceedings, he cannot expect indulgence of the Court. In the matter of Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another : (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has made it clear that government department cannot be treated on a different footing while dealing with the application of condonation of delay.

IN the light of the above noted proposition of law, we now proceed to look into the explanation given by the petitioner department for delay in filing of the revision petition. The explanation given is far from satisfactory. It is pleaded that the delay has occurred because of time consumed in bureaucratic procedures, collecting relevant documents from concerned department and preparing and filing of the revision petition but for the above vague explanation, specific dates and the time consumed at various steps have not been given. The petitioner has not bothered to specify the time consumed at various stages of the movement of file from one seat to other. In absence of the above details, we do not find any reason to accept the vague explanation given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay of more than 100 days in filing of the revision petition.

EVEN on merits we find that order of the District Forum against the petitioner is well reasoned. The State Commission has also confirmed the order of the District Forum. There is no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders nor the petitioner has been able to show any material irregularity which may call for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the application for condonation of delay. It is accordingly dismissed. Since delay has not been condoned, the revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.