LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST vs HARWINDER KAUR KHANGURA & ORS.

This Appeal, under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Miscellaneous Application No. 2130/2016 in Execution Application No. EA/29/2015 in Complaint Case No. CC/122/2013. By the impugned order, while posting the matter for further proceedings for 03.04.2017, the State Commission has directed the Judgment Debtors, i.e. the State of Punjab and the Appellant herein (for short "the Improvement Trust"), to allot the plot to the Complainants/Decree Holders on reserved price, as interpreted by the High Court in Amrit Pal Singh Grewal (Col) v. State of Punjab and Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 10399 of 2012.

The Opposite Parties had floated a 550 Acres Scheme, namely, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Development Scheme. For development of the said Scheme, inter alia, the land of one Sant Singh, husband of Respondent/Complainant No.1 and father of the other Respondents/Complainants, admeasuring 3947 sq. yards, had been acquired by the Improvement Trust, vide Award dated 19.04.1976. As per 1964 and 1975 Rules, which were in vogue at that time, the said Sant Singh became entitled to allotment of a plot as a Local Displaced Person (LDP). However, despite several requests in this regard, together with requisite deposits and necessary documents, by the said Sant Singh, the plot was not allotted to him. Subsequently, unfortunately, on 24.02.2012, the said Sant Singh died. Having waited for a considerable time, when no plot was allotted to the Complainants, being the legal heirs of the said Sant Singh, in respect of which they had also submitted a Certificate, dated 01.08.2013, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Improvement Trust, alleging deficiency in service on its part on the said count, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, praying for the appropriate reliefs.

On appreciation of the evidence adduced before it by the parties, the State Commission, vide its detailed order dated 19.01.2015, allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties, including the Improvement Trust, to allot a suitable plot of 500 sq. yards in the Scheme on current reserved price, and in case the plot was not available in the Scheme, then to allot the plot of the same size in any other Scheme. The State Commission had also directed the Improvement Trust to pay to the Complainants a sum of 30,000/- as litigation expenses.

Aggrieved with the said order, the Improvement Trust carried the matter further by its Appeal (No. 840/2015) to this Commission. During pendency of the said Appeal, the Complainants also filed their Appeal Execution (No. 2/2016) before this Commission. Both the said matters were disposed of by this Commission vide order dated 11.07.2016, inter alia, observing thus: "Regard being had to the fact that as on date, there is no interim order or any other impediment in the allotment of plot No. 93E and the Chairman, having already taken a decision that a plot admeasuring 300/400 sq. yd. can be allotted to the appellant, we direct that the afore-noted plot shall be allotted to the Appellant on usual terms and conditions, as applicable to the other allottees under the "256 acre Scheme". The said allotment shall be made within four weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

On allotment of the said plot, the execution proceedings against the Improvement Trust shall sand closed."

Though, in compliance of the said directions, the aforesaid plot was allotted to the Complainants but the Execution proceedings before the State Commission were not closed. It is in the said proceedings that the order impugned in this Appeal has been passed by the State Commission. As noted above, by the impugned order, while posting the matter for 03.04.2017, the State Commission has directed the Judgment Debtors to allot the plot to the Decree Holders on the reserved price, as interpreted by the High Court in "Amrit Pal Singh Grewal (Col) v. State of Punjab and other (supra) .

Hence, the present Appeal.

It is pointed out by the Office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, in as much as there is a delay of 161 days in filing the same. An Application, praying for condonation of the said delay, has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 3 - 7 of the said Application, the Improvement Trust has furnished the following explanation for the delay: "3. That the applicant/appellant after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 14.02.2017 has sent the matter to the legal department for taking the permission to file the appeal before the Hon''ble National Commission. The said matter was perused by the Legal Department of the applicant/appellant in March 2017 and necessary steps were taken for taking the permission of the authorities to file the appeal before the Hon''ble National Commission New Delhi.

That the Legal Department has given his consent to file the appeal before this Hon''ble Commission and thereafter the matter was sent by the Legal Department to the concerned person for taking appropriate steps to file an appeal before the Hon''ble National Commission.

That the matter was marked by memo no. 2093 dated 31.05.2017 for filing the appeal before the National Commission. The documents were also handed over to the advocate by the Improvement Trust in 1 st week of June.

That on receiving the documents certain clarifications were required and certain more documents were sought to be supplied by the counsel of the Trust. The same was supplied in the 2 nd week of June 2017, after which the matter has been prepared and filed at the earliest.

There is a delay of 110 days in filing of Execution Appeal against the order dated 14.02.2017 which is notional and delay is not deliberate and/or intentional and is because of the aforesaid reasons."

We have heard learned counsel for the Improvement Trust on the question of delay.

In our opinion, the explanation furnished by the Improvement Trust is wholly unsatisfactory and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the short ground of delay.

Since the impugned order had been passed by the State Commission in the presence of its Counsel and the Application is silent as regards the date of receipt of copy of the said order, it is clear that the Improvement Trust was aware of the said order. Going by the same, there is inordinate delay of 161 days in filing the Appeal, over and above the statutory period as provided under Section 27A of the Act, and not the delay of 110 days, as stated by the Improvement Trust in the Application. The said delay is sought to be explained on the specious pleas that it occurred in taking permission from its Legal Department to file the Appeal before this Commission; pursuant to memo dated 31.05.2017, in the 1 st week of June, 2017 the matter was assigned to an Advocate, who sought for certain documents/clarifications, which were provided to him in the 2 nd week of June, 2017; and thereafter the Appeal was filed. Evidently, the Improvement Trust took more than two months in taking a decision and marking/assigning the matter to its Advocate, on 31.05.2017. Though by the said date, the Appeal, to be filed by the Improvement Trust was already barred by limitation, yet its Advocate, to whom necessary documents had been furnished by it in the 2 nd of June, 2017, took further more than two months in filing the Appeal, after completing the necessary formalities. If, in the opinion of the Improvement Trust, the impugned directions were not warranted and the Execution proceedings before the State Commission were liable to be closed, in terms of the orders passed by this Commission, it was required to take necessary action in the matter promptly but that was not to be.

The question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. In Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563], the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under : "28. 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 fides, 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 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 the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Improvement Trust has failed to make out any "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay of 161 days in filing of the present Appeal, which, for the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to condone. We are also convinced that the condonation of the said delay would cause further harassment to the Complainants, whose land was acquired by the Improvement Trust four decades ago in the year 1976, but are still waiting for allotment of a plot as LDP under the Scheme.

Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.