JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. vs MUKHRAM

LEARNED Counsel for petitioner states on instruction states that petitioner wants to pursue with the present petition. Heard.

ALONG with present revision petition an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. In the entire application, no period of delay has been mentioned. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that there delay of 37 days in filing of the present revision petition.

THE impugned order in this case was passed on 23.1.2013 and as per petitioner''s own case the certified copy of the same was received by the Petitioner Nigam on 28.1.2013. The present revision petition has been filed before this Commission on 27.5.2013. Apparently there is delay in filing of the revision petition.

NOW , coming to the grounds on which condonation of delay is sought, it is the case of the petitioner that copy of the impugned order was sent to the concerned Assistant Engineer who in turn send it to the Legal Department along with the case file where due to administrative reason decision was taken to file the revision petition before this Commission. In the entire application, name of the concerned Assistant Engineer as well as those person who were dealing with the file in the Legal Department nor name of that Counsel in whose name the sanction letter was issued, have been mentioned. Petitioner has made absolutely vague averments and have taken all the pleas for seeking condonation of delay in a casual manner, which is the usual practice of the Public Bodies.

IN Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Another, I : (2012) CLT 338 (SC) : II (2012) SLT 312 : (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563, Hon''ble Supreme Court observed: 24. 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 Court''s discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the land -losers 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 of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.

The Apex 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 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 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.

NOW , Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has observed: 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.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

EVEN , on merits, petitioner has no case at all in view of the concurrent findings given by both the Fora below.

STATE Commission in its impugned order observed: We heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. As per tariff of the appellants if the appellants supply 24 hours then they charged charges @ Rs. 2.10 per unit from the consumer and if electricity supply is made for less than 24 hours then rate is @ Rs. 1.10 per unit. In this case it is not in dispute that the appellants have supplied electricity supply for six hours or more. As such as per tariff may are entitled to charge the complainant @ Rs. 1.10 per unit for electricity consumption. The order of learned District Forum, Hanumangarh deserves no interference and thus appeal being not allowable is hereby rejected.

Petitioner has not placed any document -on record to show as to what was the tariff with regard to electricity being charged by the petitioner nor it has filed any document to show that/petitioner was supplying electricity round the clock, to the respondent/complainant.

UNDER these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The present revision/petition is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits. No order as to costs.