HUDA vs Krishana Devi

THE State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. There was a delay of 691 days in filing the appeal. The statutory period for filing the appeal is 30 days. As per provisions of C.P.Act, 1986, the Consumer Fora are required to decide the cases within a period of 90 days of its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days, wherever evidence is required to be taken. Delay of 691 days could not be condoned without showing sufficient cause. State Commission relying upon a few judgments of this Commission as well as Supreme Court has held that Department of Government cannot be shown any special indulgence in the matter of limitation. The State Commission has further recorded the finding that the petitioner was unable to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The State Commission, in its order observed as under: "We are of the view that the plea of condonation of delay of 691 days is also against the very spirit of the Act where the maximum period of limitation has been prescribed under Section 24-A as two years for filing the complaint and for filing the appeal the limitation has been prescribed to decide the complaint from the date of receipt of notice and 90 days has been prescribed to decide the appeal from the date of its admission. These provisions have been incorporated with a view to dispose of the complaint as well as the appeal expeditiously. Admittedly, it is a case where official of uncalled by any official of the Government. We are, therefore, left with no other alternative but to ask the authorities to book the officers/officials who are responsible for the delay of filing this appeal and caused a great financial loss to the State Exchequer. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. With this observation, we dismiss this appeal being time barred in limine, with the direction to the HUDA department to hold a departmental inquiry against the officers/officials who are responsible for the aforesaid act with further direction to decide the same within six months from the date of passing of this order."

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.