LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs HARBHAJAN SINGH

PRESENT revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 2 against the order dated 30.8.2007, passed in First Appeal No. 630 of 2005 by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (short, "State Commission"). Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed by the petitioner. However, in the entire application, no period of delay has been mentioned at all.

BRIEF facts are that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/Complainants filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5/opposite party No. 1 seeking direction to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 to allot and hand over plot measuring 411 sq. yards in lieu of the acquired area measuring 454 sq. yards. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 contested the complaint.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (short, "District Forum") vide its order dated 4.11.2004, dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same, vide its impugned order. It directed the petitioner to pass an order of allotment of suitable plot of 400 sq. yards to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar Scheme. In case, the plot is not available, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 may be allotted a plot in another scheme which may have been framed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

THOUGH , petitioner has not mentioned the period of delay. However, learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that there is delay of 515 days in filing of the revision petition.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the application for condonation of delay. Grounds on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under: 2. That the final order in the above matter was reserved for 24.8.2007 and was decided/final order was passed on 30.8.2007, and as per the order/rules the same was to be communicated to the petitioner by the Registry of the State Commission, Punjab, free of cost, but however, the same was never received by the petitioner -trust.

That on 27.2.2009, official of the petitioners received the summons from the Hon''ble District Consumer, Ludhiana, for the first time, in Execution Petition No. 117/2008 and only then the petitioner came to know that the above matter had been decided by the Hon''ble State Commission, Punjab on 30.8.2007, itself.

That, thereafter, the petitioner contacted his Counsel Mr. Pradeep Bhandari at Chandigarh to know about the case and he informed that the orders of Hon''ble State Commission are sent directly to the parties and not to the Counsel(s).

That on 4.3.2009, the office of the petitioner -Trust wrote a letter to the Government of Punjab for getting the sanction and approval of the name of Advocate for filing appeal/revision before this Hon''ble Commission and the Government of Punjab, vide order dated 16.3.2009, sanctioned the name of the present Counsel and the same was received by the office of the petitioner - Trust on 27.3.2009.

That thereafter the relevant case files/documents were collected from the office of Mr. Pradeep Bhandari, Advocate at Chandigarh and the same was sent to the present Counsel on 4.4.2009 for preparing/filing the appeal.

That the present Counsel prepared/drafted the present petition and sent the same on 10.4.2009 for perusal and signature, etc. to the office of the petitioner -Trust.

That, however, from 15.4.2009 the Legal Superintendent of the petitioner -Trust proceeded on leave, and all the relevant papers remained in his custody.

That, in the meantime, on 2.4.2009, the official of the petitioner -Trust had applied for the certified copy of the impugned order which was prepared and delivered to them on 2.4.2009 itself.

THAT on 30.5.2009, a telephonic message from the office of present Counsel was received by the petitioner -Trust that a draft revision petition namely Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Harbhajan Singh, etc. was sent to the petitioner -Trust and same had not been received back till date so needful be done immediately. Acting upon this telephone message, official of the petitioner -Trust approached the present Counsel for finalization of the revision petition. Accordingly, the present petition was redrafted and is being filed before this Hon''ble Court. However, during this process delay of ...... days has occurred which in respectful submission of the petitioner is not intentional but bona fide due to the reasons mentioned above. 10. Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply to the application amongst other, have stated:

The order of the State Commission was received in the office of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana on 15.10.2007 at Sr. No. 2492. A copy of the receipt register duly supplied by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana is attached as Annexure R -1. The order has been entrusted to the Taw Officer against signatures. It may be mentioned that the impugned order was dispatched by the Hon''ble State Commission on 11.9.2007 vide Sr. Nos. 2710 to the State of Punjab and 2711 to the Ludhiana Improvement Trust. Not only this, after the expiry of limitation, the answering respondent being power of attorney made an application to the Principal Secretary for compliance of the order. This was duly received by the Principal Secretary. The comments were sought from the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vide memo No. 5/127/08 -12/1 LG2/5403 dated 26.6.2008. This letter was also duly received by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. However, the Improvement Trust did not make any progress. A copy of the representation and the letter 26.6.2008 are attached as Annexures R -2 and R -3 respectively. When, the Improvement Trust did not take any action, an execution application was filed on 10.9.2008. The notice was received by the Trust on 10.10.2008. No appeal was filed either after receiving the order from the State Commission on 15.10.2007 nor after receiving the letter dated 26.6.2008. The appeal was not even filed after receipt of the execution notices under Section 27. In this way, the Improvement Trust never decided to file any revision for the reason that the case was covered by Shakuntla Devi''s case decided upto the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. The deponent started receiving telephonic messages to get the plot allotted by meeting the Trust officials i.e. Executive Officer or the Superintendent. But the deponent always stated that there is no need to meet them as the execution application is pending and the plot is liable to be allotted without any consideration. On feeling offended, the present revision petition was got filed by the Executive Officer by misstating the facts that the order was not received in the office of the Trust.

IT is well settled that "Sufficient Cause" for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact. The main ground on which condonation has been sought is that the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner. It was only for the first time that on 27.2.2009, official of the Petitioner -Trust received the summon from the District Forum, Ludhiana in the execution petition. Then, only petitioner got the knowledge that the matter has been decided by the State Commission. Thereafter, steps were taken for filing the revision petition. Thus, the delay has occurred due to the office procedure.

THE Petitioner for reasons best to it has not placed on record the copy of the summon purported to have been received from the District Forum in the execution proceeding, which was a material piece of evidence.

BE that as it may, the respondent on other hand has placed on record, copy of the receipt register maintained by the petitioner - Trust (Page 83 of the paper book). According to it, the order of the State Commission was received by the petitioner on 15.10.2007, vide Sr. No. 2492. Thus, the defence taken by the petitioner that, it did not receive the copy of the impugned order at all, stands completely demolished. In Ram Lal and Ors. v. 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 Section 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.

IN R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, : I (2009) CLT 188 (SC) : I (2009) SLT 701 : 2009 (2) Scale 108, Apex Court has 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.

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 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.

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

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.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the long delay of 515 days in filing of the present petition.

ACCORDINGLY , application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being hopelessly barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only). Cost be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account'' of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. still realization. List on 7.3.2014 -for compliance.