KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Karuna Shankar Shukla

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1292/2009 - Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Karuna Shankara Shukla by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent applied for a house in KDA Colony of OP and House no. L-II/87 was allotted to him in a lottery drawn on 16.6.1989. Some amount was to be paid in 56 quarterly instalments. Complainant deposited money time to time and possession of house was also handed over to the complainant on 29.9.1992. Later on, complainant came to know that complainant was required to deposit instalments from 1990, whereas agreement was executed in the year 1992 and thus, he deposited excess amount; even then, OP has not executed and registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant failed to deposit instalments in time so sale deed could not be executed in his favour and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.28,000/- along with 10% p.a. interest and further directed to execute sale deed and get it registered in favour of the complainant. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay of 78 days occurred in filing revision petition as approval was not granted by higher authorities in time and sometime was taken in getting translations of the documents and drafting of the revision petition; hence, delay may be condoned.

PARAGRAPHS 3, 4 and 5 of the application for condonation of delay run as under: "3. That after the passing impugned order was passed on 27.2.2013, the copy of the impugned order was received to the Petitioner ''s department on 12.3.2013 through the letter dated 7.3.2013 written by N.C. Upadhyay, Advocate, Lucknow thereafter the copy of the order was received to Zone-IV on 23.3.2013. 4. That the comments in respect of appeal was received on 15.4.2013, whereupon the approval was granted through letter dated 1.5.2013 by Vice-Chairman, which was received on 3.5.2013. 5. That in respect of the appointment of advocate, the letter dated 6.5.2013 was sent to Law Department where after undersigned counsel was appointed and the letter dated 8.5.2013 for same was received to the Petitioner ''s department. Thereafter, the entire file was assigned to the undersigned advocate on 12.5.2013 in respect of the filing of revision petition. Thereafter it took some time in drafting the petition, translations etc. Shri Manoj Kumar, departmental officer contacted undersigned on 30.6.2013. That the affidavit of the concerned officer was sent via courier on 16.7.2013 at the office of undersigned. Thereafter the revision petition was filed."

Perusal of application reveals that petitioner ''s Counsel received copy of impugned order dated 27.2.2013 on 7.3.2013 which was received by petitioner-Authority on 12.3.2013, but approval for filing revision was granted on 1.5.2013 meaning thereby 50 days were taken in approval for filing revision and no explanation has been given for this inordinate delay.

COUNSEL for the petitioner was appointed on 6.5.2013 and petitioner ''s Counsel received entire file on 12.5.2013, but revision petition has been filed on 21.8.2013 and apparently, no explanation has been given by Counsel for taking almost almost 100 days in preparation and filing revision petition. As per para 5 of the application affidavit in support of revision petition was received by Counsel for the petitioner on 16.7.2013 meaning thereby after that no further steps except filing revision petition were required, but revision petition has been filed on 21.8.2013 and no explanation has been given for condonation of this period of delay. It appears that on account of negligence of petitioner ''s Counsel revision petition could not be filed in time and application for condonation of inordinate delay of 78 days without any explanation is liable to be dismissed.

AS there is inordinate delay of 78 days, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court. In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed; "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant."

HON ''ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under; "We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time."

Hon ''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government departments.

HON ''ble Apex Court in 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority observed as under: "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".

Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 78 days. Revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.

AS application for condonation of delay has been rejected, revision petition being barred by time is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as barred by limitation at admission stage with no order as to costs.