Justice Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

          IA 8829 of 2018 (condonation of delay)

This Application has been filed by the Appellant along with the Appeal for condonation of delay of about 241 days in filing the Appeal against the order dated 06.04.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”).  The Appeal was filed on 01.05.2018.  In the Application, it is submitted that the Appellant has a good case on merit.  It is submitted that the delay is inadvertent.  It is submitted that copy of the order dated 06.04.2017 was received on 03.08.2017 and was put up before the dealing assistant on 07.08.2017 for obtaining advice of the legal cell of GMADA.  Thereafter they sent the file to estate officer (housing) on 24.08.2017 which dealt with the case on 28.08.2017 and sought the comments from Chief Engineer, GMADA.  On 05.09.2017, Chief Engineer GMADA prepared its report.  The file was put up thereafter for consideration before the Estate Officer, (Housing) who marked this file to legal cell on 11.09.2017.  The legal branch put up the file to higher authorities of GMADA on 20.10.2017 for taking approval for filing the Appeal.  On 22.11.2017, the Chief Administrator, GMADA gave approval for filing the Appeal.  The sanction thereafter was issued on 08.12.2017.  The sanction was received in the office when the Counsel was not available due to winter vacations and it was handed over to the Counsel only in the first week of January 2018.  Learned Counsel was indisposed due to major surgery of one of the member of her immediate family and could prepare the Appeal only in the last week of March.  The vetted draft along with draft of ₹35,000/- was received by the Counsel in the last week of April and the paper book was made ready on 27.04.2018 and 30.04.2018 being holiday the Appeal was filed thereafter.  It is submitted that the delay had occurred due to these reasons.

2.       I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.  The Appellant in the application has contended that they had received copy of the order on 03.08.2017.  From the noting of the impugned order which has been placed on record, it is apparent that the free copy was dispatched on 26.07.2017.  The period of limitation for filing the Appeal is 30 days and the Appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of the impugned order, i.e., by 02.09.2017.  From the contention in the application, it is apparent that till 02.09.2017, the Appellant could not even had decided whether they wanted to Appeal the order.  Their file remained moving from table to table from that date till December 2017, i.e., for 3 months, when according to them the file was sent to the Counsel for preparation of the Appeal.  The authorities, i.e. the member of the legal cell of the Appellant, certainly were aware that the period of limitation is 30 days for filing the Appeal, yet it took them 5 months to reach to the decision of filing the Appeal.  Even on expiry of such long period, no promptness in filing the Appeal has been shown.  The matter remained pending for consideration of the draft with the learned Counsel till May 2018 when the Appeal was filed.  Therefore, for another 5 months, the Appeal draft could not be prepared and the Appeal could not be filed.

3.       It is a settled proposition of law that the condonation of delay is not a matter of right.  The applicant has to give sufficient cause for the delay.  Sufficient cause means adequate or reasonable reasons to show that despite the fact that they remained active and acted diligently, for the reasons beyond their control, the Appeal could not be filed within limitation.  In the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where sufficient reasons are not shown, the courts have no discretion but to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay.  The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

"5. 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.”

4.       In the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle which should be the guide to determine whether the reasons given are sufficient to condone the delay.  The Hon’ble Court has held as under:

  “12. 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.”

5.       In the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned this Commissions that they should always keep in mind the special nature of the period of limitation given under the Act.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“5.       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 Fora."

6.       From the perusal of the contentions in the application enumerating the reasons for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the reasons given for the delay are not of such nature which could show that the Appellants could not have filed the present Appeal within the period of limitation due to circumstances beyond their control.  The delay seems to have occurred because nobody had acted diligently and promptly and the file remained pending due to administrative reasons because of lethargy of its officials.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” has clearly held that government departments must show their promptness and eagerness to ensure that they had performed their duties with diligence and commitment.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“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.’

7.       In the present case, as discussed above, no reasonable and sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of almost more than 200 days have been shown.  The application has no merits.  Consequently, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine.