The learned proxy counsel for the petitioners is present. The learned counsel for the respondent is also present. Perused the record. Specifically perused I.A. No. 479/2017, which is an application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners. The case was decided (on merit) by the District Forum vide its Order dated 24.03.2014, and appeal thereagainst was dismissed (on merit) by the State Commission vide its Order dated 24.06.2015. This revision has been filed against the Order dated 24.06.2015 of the State Commission. Admittedly there is a delay of about 465 days in filing this revision petition. The application for condonation of delay inter alia reads as below:- “2. That the accompanying Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of about 465 days if the time for filing the present petition is calculated from the date of impugned order. ……. 4. That on 14.10.2016 the Counsel for the Petitioner was travelling out of Delhi and during that time even his Court Clerk was on leave when the translated and typed documents in English along with signed Applications sent by the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Thane Central Division, Thane – 400601 was received by the peon in the office of the Counsel for the Petitioner. 5. That inadvertently translated and typed documents in English along with signed Petition, Applications and Affidavits sent by the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Thane Central Division, Thane – 400601 was misplaced by the peon in the office of the Counsel for the Petitioner during and only signed Petition, Applications and Affidavits could be retrieved only by the Court Clerk of the Counsel for the Petitioner after lot of efforts on 23.12.2016. 6. That on 09.01.2017 from the office of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Thane Central Division, Thane – 400601 required papers with relevant documents was received in the office of the Counsel for Petitioner for filing Revision Petition.” A bare reading shows that there is no just or sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 465 days. It bears emphasis that the officers of the petitioner Department of Post have adopted a perfunctory and casual approach, both towards filing the revision in time and towards attempting to show just or sufficient cause for delay. This revision petition is heavily time barred on the point of limitation, with no just or sufficient cause for delay. With the afore discussion, this revision petition is dismissed on limitation. Needless to add, enforcement proceedings under section 25 and penal proceedings under section 27 of the Act 1986 can proceed as per the law. A copy of this Order may be sent to the State Commission and to the District Forum by the Registry within a period of ten days. Later on, Mr. Sanjib K. Mohanty, Advocate appeared for the petitioners and was apprised of the Order. | 
