UNION OF INDIA vs UMA DEVI

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, "State Commission") dated 19.12.2011 whereby State Commission dismissed the appeal No.1836/2000 preferred by the petitioners/opposite parties.

THE revision, however, has been filed with an inordinate delay of 1062 days beyond the permissible period of 90 days. Thus, the petitioners have filed an application for condonation of delay.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that the absence of the petitioner on the relevant date of hearing is unintentional because the petitioner was not aware of the date of hearing. It is argued that the appeal after admission was consigned to the Registry to be taken up in due course. However, no notice of date of hearing was issued to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non -appearance. We do not find merit in this contention. On perusal of para 4 of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the petitioners have pleaded that execution proceedings pursuant to the order of the District Forum were initiated in the year 2013 and the counsel for Central Government on receipt of notice appeared in the execution case and he apprised the Head of the Division regarding issue of recovery certificate. In para 9 of the application, it is mentioned that the revisionist awakened after receiving the orders for the recovery certificate. On the reading of the above averments, it is clear that the petitioner came to know about the order of the District Forum and dismissal of his appeal atleast in the year 2013. There is no cogent explanation why the petitioner took almost two years to file revision petition after having come to know about the recovery certificate.

THE law relating to the condonation of delay is well -settled. The petitioner in order to succeed has to explain each and every day of delay but no cogent explanation for inordinate delay of more than three years is forthcoming.

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 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."

IN the light of the above settled position in law as also the discussion above, we are not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay. Thus, we do not find any reason to condone the inordinate delay of 1062 days in filing of revision petition. Application of condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.