RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & 2 ORS vs PURAN SINGH CHAUHAN

District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot house under Special Registration Scheme, 1988 under the reserved Journalist category at the price

prevalent at the time of allotment and further awarded cost of Rs.1,000/-. Complainant filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed OP to allot house at the rate prevalent in the year 2001 in Mansarovar/Pratap Nagar Housing Scheme as per availability against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 428 days.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that delay occurred in collecting entire material and seeking information from Legal Department, which may be condoned and revision petition may be decided on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there is no explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 428 days, application be dismissed.

As per office report there is delay of 432 days in filing revision petition. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of application for condonation of delay run as under: "3. That the Hon''ble State Commission vide its impugned order dated 2. 7.2012 allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein. Thereafter the file was sent for opinion for filing Revision petition before this Hon''ble Commission to legal department.

That the legal department after going through the file and relevant materials available on record, opined that the order dated 2.7.2012 would be challenged before this Hon''ble Commission.

That the concerned officer of the Board after collecting the entire file came to Delhi and handed over the same for filing revision petition before this Hon''ble Commission in Second week of November, 2013.

That thereafter the revision petition was drafted and translations of the annexures were done and in these process sometime was consumed by the counsel for the petitioner and after getting all these things the revision petition is being filed without causing any further delay in the matter".

In this application it has been mentioned that file was sent for opinion to legal department and legal department opined that revision may be filed. Nowhere it has been mentioned that when file was sent to legal department and when opinion was received from legal department. It further reveals from application that concerned officer of the Board after collecting entire material came

to Delhi in second week in November, 2013 and revision petition was filed on 6.12.2013. There is no satisfactory explanation from the date of receipt of impugned order by the petitioner till 2 nd week of November, 2013. It has not been mentioned that with which officer file remained for almost 16 months and what was the reason for delay in giving opinion. On 29.10.2014, this Commission asked learned Counsel for the petitioner to place on record action taken against defaulting officer and on 13.3.2015, it was submitted that he is not in a position to place on record documents depicting any action against defaulting officer. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that any action was taken by petitioner against the de faulting officer.

As no reasonable explanation has been given by petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 432 days, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of the following judgment 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 & 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 432 days. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, revision petition being barred by limitation is also liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed as barred by limitation with no order as to costs.