IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs Gurnam Chand

AS similar question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Respondents/Complainants have filed the Consumer Complaints before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (for short, ''District Forum'') on the ground that they were allotted plots by the Petitioner -Trust for which instalments due have been paid well within time. It is alleged that petitioner has failed to provide the basic amenities nor it handed over possession of the plots. Thus, there is deficiency on the part of the Petitioner.

CONSUMER complaints were contested by the Petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaints and passed the necessary directions.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, ''State Commission'') which dismissed the same vide its impugned order.

NOW petitioner has filed the present petitions. Along with it, applications seeking condonation of delay ranging from 65 days to 78 days have been filed. 7. The main ground on which condonation of delay has been sought is, that after receiving the copy of the order it was sent for approval to the Director, Local Government. After receiving the approval, petitioner engaged an Advocate to prepare the revisions and to file the same. The delay has occurred due to the office procedure and as such the same be condoned.

It is well settled that "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

Petitioner case is that the delay has occurred due to the office procedure. No detail whatsoever has been given as to which officials have dealt with the matters at different level. Moreover, it is nowhere stated as to what action has been taken by the petitioner against its delinquent officials for causing the delay.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority,, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), laid down that:

It is also apposite to observe that while deciding 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.

Further, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and Others v. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, : II (2012) SLT 312 : I (2012) CLT 338 (SC) : (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, has held:

After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under:

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time -limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the Courts'' discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the Courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to Courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.

The Court further observed:

It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with Court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

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 fide, 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 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 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.

Observations made by the Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, no sufficient ground is made out for condoning the long delay of more than two months in filing of the present petitions. Applications for condonation of delay under these circumstances are not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petitions being barred by limitation are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.