Mangal Moorti Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bharat Subedar Chavan

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Maharashtra Mumbai dated 03.03.2014 in Appeal No. 57/2011 as also the connected appeals whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeals preferred against the order of the District Forum.

THE revision, however, has been filed after the expiry of period of appeal with the delay of 100 days ( as per the petitioner) and 101 days as per the computation done by the Registry. The petitioner opposite party has thus moved IA No. 6250 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

MR . Rahul Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay in filing of revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred because of the time consumed in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order of the State Commission Mumbai. Some delay was caused because the representative of the petitioner company and the architect were following up the issue of grant of occupation certificate with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra East, Mumbai. It is further contended that the petitioner company is based at Navi Mumbai. Therefore, some time was consumed in the process of hiring the counsel for filing revision petition in National Commission and it also took some time to collect the entire bunch of relevant documents which were required to be filed alongwith revision petition. Learned counsel has thus urged me to condone the delay in filing of appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. In the matter of Esha Bhattacharjee V Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649, Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down various guiding principles to deal with the request for condonation of delay which are interalia reproduced as under:

"xxx v. Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi. The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play x x x ix. The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant facts to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x x x xvii) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non -serious matter and hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."

In State of Karnataka and Ors. V. S.M.Kotrayya and Ors, 1996 6 SCC 267, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches on the ground that he filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches."

In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 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".

In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 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 vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 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".

Recently, Hon''ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 2012 3 SCC 563 has held: 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 bonafide, 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 bonafide 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."

FROM the above it is clear that condonation of delay is not a matter of routine and the petitioner in order to succeed is required to explain each and every day of delay convincingly. The delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone unless the refusal to condone would result in gross injustice to the petitioner.

IN the light of the above noted settled position in law, I now proceed to consider the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in filing of the revision petition. The sole reason for the delay is that the time was consumed for obtaining certified copy, taking follow up action for issue of Occupation Certificate with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the time consumed in hiring the lawyer and providing him with the copies of the relevant documents. The aforesaid explanation is highly vague and it is bereft of specific details with dates. Under Regulation 14 (i) of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the period of limitation is fixed at 90 days. The aforesaid period of limitation is provided to enable the petitioner to take a decision whether or not to challenge the impugned order, collate documents and engage a lawyer etc. and 90 days time is more than sufficient. Admittedly, the revision petition has been filed with inordinate delay of 100 days after the expiry of period of limitation, of which no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming Therefore, I find no reason to condone the delay particularly in view of finding of Supreme Court in the matter of Anshul Aggarwal and also the fact that revision has been filed against concurrent finding of fact returned by both the foras below. Thus, I decline to condone the delay.

IN view of the discussion above, IA No. 6250 of 2014 seeking condonation of delay in filing of revision petition is dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.