ISHWAR SINGH MALHAN vs HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THIS revision is directed by the complainant against the order dated 6.10.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh condoning 660 days delay in filing appeal by the respondent/opposite party against the order dated 7.6.2002 of a District Forum whereby respondent was directed to hand over physical possession of booth No. 30/6, Panchkula after removing all encumbrances and charge only contractual simple rate of interest of 10% p.a.

CONTENTION advanced by Mrs. Girija Wadhwa for petitioner is that the allegations made in para 3 of condonation application did not disclose any cause much less sufficient cause to condone the delay, in question, in support of the submission reliance was placed on the decision in R.P. No. 2696/02, IV (2003) CPJ 57 (NC), Ashok Kumar v. HVPNL, decided on 25.4.2003, by this Commission. Para 3 of the condonation application (copy at page 9) which is material, is reproduced below: "3. That due to the long official procedure from Estate Officer, HUDA to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula for filing the appeal against the order of the learned District Forum, a delay of 660 days has been caused. This delay caused is bona fide and not intentional and has been caused inadvertently due to long official procedure."

As may be seen from the impugned order the delay was condoned by the State Commission for the reason mentioned in condonation application. To be noted that dates, months and year of the movement of file at different levels till sanction to file appeal was accorded by Chief Administrator, HUDA has not been disclosed, still the State Commission without examining the ground taken in said para 3 condoned the delay in question. When a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner due to non-filing of appeal within limitation period the State Commission should have examined the authenticity of grounds before condoning the delay. Impugned order, thus, cannot be legally sustained and deserves to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986.

Accordingly, while allowing revision, aforesaid order dated 10.6.2004 is set aside and application for condonation of delay as also appeal are dismissed. No order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.