HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER vs SHEELA DEVI

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite parties against the impugned order dated 8.6.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 605 of 2007 - HUDA and Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent applied for allotment of residential plot of 10 Marlas in Sector 8, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra under oustees scheme and deposited 10% earnest money on 28.3.2003 along with application form with petitioner-OP. OP accepted application and complainant was held entitled for residential plot under oustees quota, but later on, application of the complainant for allotment of plot was rejected by OP on the ground that she had not submitted no objection certificate from other co-sharers. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that, as complainant failed to furnish no objection certificate from other co-sharers, application was rightly rejected and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to issue allotment letter without raising any demand of affidavits regarding no objection. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Petitioner also filed application for condonation of delay along with revision petition. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay and perused record.

PETITIONER along with revision petition filed application for condonation of delay in which, it was submitted that time was consumed in seeking necessary approvals for filing revision petition and collecting relevant documents. It was not mentioned that how many days delay was to be condoned. Later on, filed affidavit of Mr. Satbir Singh after almost 7 months in which, it was submitted that in the light of impugned judgment by letter dated 27.7.2009, indemnity bond was demanded from the complainant. Complainant instead of submitting indemnity bond, filed execution application and show cause notice was received from District Forum on 3.11.2011. Then, case was again examined and headquarter vide letter dated 9.12.2011 directed to file revision petition. It was further submitted that Counsel prepared revision petition which was sent for approval of the competent authority on 28.12.2011 and office of the petitioner sent revision petition on 30.12.2011 for approval of Administrator, HUDA. Administrator HUDA approved revision petition on 11.1.2012 and revision petition was filed on 23.1.2012. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention towards noting of the office of petitioner, which reveals that on 17.7.2009, it was recommended that revision petition may not be filed and plot may be allotted after obtaining indemnity bond.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as petitioner decided not to file revision petition and allot plot after obtaining indemnity bond, revision petition was not filed in time, but as the respondent filed execution petition and notice was received by the petitioner on 3.11.2011, this revision petition was prepared and filed; hence, delay of 854 days in filing revision petition may be condoned. To our utter surprise, when petitioner decided not to file revision petition, why this revision petition has been filed, is not clear. Petitioner instead of demanding indemnity bond from the complainant should have complied with the order of District Forum regarding allotment of plot without raising any demand of affidavits regarding no objection. Merely because execution petition was filed by the complainant, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file revision petition; though, earlier decided not to file revision petition and allot the plot. Apparently, there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 854 days.

PERUSAL of affidavit of Satbir Singh also reveals that revision petition was prepared by Counsel and was received by competent authority for approval on 28.12.2011. Even then, revision petition was filed on 23.1.2012 meaning thereby filed after 25 days after receiving draft of revision petition for approval. As there had already been delay of about 830 days, petitioner should have filed revision petition immediately after petitioner received draft revision petition for approval.

AS there is inordinate delay of 854 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. As revision petition has been filed along with inordinate delay of 854 days, we do not deem it proper to condone inordinate delay of 854 days and in such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed resulting in dismissal of revision as time barred.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition is dismissed as time barred with no order as to costs.