HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sunita Bhatia

FIRST of all, there is delay of 176 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The delay is explained in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the application which are reproduced as follows: "2. That the Hon ''ble State Commission announced the order on 8.7.2011 and the copy of order was issued on 5.8.2011. In the office of Estate Officer, copy of the order was received and the same was sent to the Head Office at Panchkula for taking appropriate action. 3. That after receiving the copy of the order from the office of Estate Officer, the case was examined by the Legal Branch. The Legal Branch of the HUDA after verification of the facts and legal position of the case proposed for filing revision petition against the order passed by the Hon ''ble State Commission. The Counsel engaged by the applicant prepared the draft revision petition and sent to the Estate Officer. In the office of Estate Officer, HUDA the file was processed for verification of the facts from the accounts branch and thereafter in the allotment branch and thereafter put before Estate Officer. After verification of the facts the file was sent to the Head Office along with the draft revision petition. The draft revision petition was approved and sent to the Counsel for filing the revision petition. The whole process was time consuming. Thus there is delay for filing the revision petition. "

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is a departmental delay and in the public interest, the delay should be condoned.

ALL these arguments lack conviction. It is now well settled that departmental and procedural delays are not to be considered. No special treatment is to be given to the Government agencies. The petitioner has also failed to explain day-to-day delay. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that the above said grounds do not constitute sufficient cause. This view finds support from the following authorities: 7. In the celebrated authority reported 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. '' 8. In Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh and Ors., V (2010) SLT 790=Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006, decided by the Apex Court on 8.7.2010 it was held - ''The party should show that besides acting bona fide, 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] '' 9. The Apex Court in recent authority reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., I (2012) CLT 338 (SC)=II (2012) SLT 312=2012 STPL (Web) 132 (SC), was pleased to hold - ''13. 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 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 Government departments. The law shelters every one under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact 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. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. '' 10. In other cases, titled as ''Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. v. Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal and Anr. '', Revision Petition No. 1848 of 2012, decided on 21.5.2012, the Bench of this Commission headed by Hon ''ble President has rejected the explanation that the file was moving from table-to-table to get the permission to file that appeal. It was further held that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum is supposed to decide the complaint within a period of 90 days from the date of filing and in case of some expert evidence is required to be led then within 150 days. The said Bench dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was delayed by 104 days. 11. In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, it has been observed that ''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 Section 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 inquiry 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 ''. " It is thus clear that this revision petition is hopelessly barred by time. "

Secondly, let us consider the pros and cons of this case on merits. The case of the complainants Sunita Bhatia and five others was as follows. They were allotted plot in Sector-20 and deposited all the instalments. Their allegation is that despite their depositing the entire amount, the OP, HUDA failed to provide basic amenities to the plot holders. They requested the OP to provide basic amenities but it did not ring the bell. Consequently, a complaint was filed with the District Forum.

VIDE order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the District Forum, it was held - "The OPs are directed to refund the extension fee and other fine recovered from the plot holders. Further under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, the OPs are directed to provide all the amenities as per promise at the time of sale or as per specification given in the advertisement and HUDA Act. Under Section 14(1)(i) of the Act, the OPs are directed to pay Rs. 500 towards litigation charges to each of the consumers. The OPs are directed to provide facilities of disposal of the rainy water and widen the road as per the sanctioned site plan otherwise the complainants shall also be entitled for compensation. The order be complied within one month from today failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the realization. "

AGGRIEVED by that order, appeal was filed with the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 8.7.2011 was pleased to hold: "While challenging part of the relief, arguments was raised with regard to relief of waiving of extension fees. However, District Forum travelling beyond the scope of prayer directed OPs to refund the extension fees and other find recovered from the plot holders. District Forum while holding deficiency had observed that width of road was less than assured. Even otherwise the question of extension fees was not within the domain of consumer for a as observed by Hon ''ble Supreme Court in HUDA v. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479. Appeal is partly allowed. While the rest of the impugned order is maintained. Therefore, order allowing complaint and issuing direction to refund the extension fee cannot sustained and is set aside. With this modification appeal is disposed of. "

Learned Counsel for the respondent half-heartedly argued that after the acceptance of instalments, the OP is not bound to comply with these directions. He also argued that in respect of the acceptance fee the OP will approach the Civil Court.

WE see no illegality in the order passed by the State Commission. It is the bounden duty of the HUDA to provide the amenities as already promised. The OP cannot take the people for a ride. Secondly this Commission cannot restrain any forum not to entertain any application or suit to be filed by the complainants before it. The Consumer Commission is not armed with that power. There lies no rub for the complainants to proceed against the OPs in any Forum.

THIS revision petition is barred by time as well as has no merits. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.