The Commissioner, City Corporation, Belgaum, Karnataka vs Namadev Krishna Hiremani

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.05.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1357 of 2007 - The Commissioner, City Corporation Vs. Sri Namadev Krishna Hiremani 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 site developed by OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.1,10,244/ - by the end of 1999. Inspite of several requests, possession of site was not given to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP/petitioner resisted complaint and submitted that site allotted to the complainant was not approved by the Government of Karnataka vide letter dated 7.9.2004. Intimation was given to the complainant vide letter dated 27.9.2006. It was further submitted that OP issued letter to receive refund of the amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to deliver possession of plot and execute sale deed and further awarded Rs.2,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1000/ - as costs. Appeal filed by the petitioner 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.

PETITIONER submitted in the application that against the order dated 22.5.2008, a writ was filed before the Hon ''ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon ''ble High Court vide order dated 30.5.2011 disposed of writ petition with liberty to approach National Commission. It was further submitted that copy of the order was received on 28.6.2011 and opinion was sought from panel Advocates who opined to allot some alternate site. Complainant declined to take alternate site in August, 2012 and after that opinion was sought from the Office of the Advocate General on 17.9.2012 and this revision petition was filed on 2.11.2012, hence, delay in filing revision petition be condoned.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as delay occurred due to filing writ petition before the High Court and seeking opinion from penal Advocates, delay in filing revision petition be condoned. Perusal of record reveals that in the application for condonation of delay it has not been mentioned that how many days delay is to be condoned. As per office report, there is delay of 1535 days in filing revision petition. As writ filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Hon ''ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 30.5.2011, delay in filing revision petition upto 30.5.2011 can be condoned. We do not find any satisfactory explanation from 31.5.2011 to 2.11.2012, meaning thereby, there is no satisfactory explanation for delay of 17 months. No document has been placed on record that complainant was offered alternate site and he refused to take that site in August, 2012 and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that any alternative site was offered to the complainant to which he declined in August, 2012.

AS there is inordinate delay of 17 months, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgment passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court.

IN Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. RewaCoalfields 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. ''''

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. ''''

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 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - AnshulAggarwal 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 ''''.

Hon ''ble Apex Courtin (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. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 17 months. In such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is to be dismissed.

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