The present appeal has been filed on 11^th August, 2021 against the Order dated 11.03.2019 of the State Commission in Complaint Case No. 905 of 2018 whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed.  Since there is a delay of more than two years, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed along with the present appeal. Arguments have been heard on this application.

2.      It is contended and argued on behalf of the appellant that they had received the free copy of the Order dated 11.03.2019 in the first week of April, 2019.  Thereafter the file was perused by the law officer and opinion was sought from the counsel of the appellant.  A notice to this effect was prepared on 09.04.2019 and the matter was placed on the same day before Asstt. Estate Officer to take a decision whether the impugned order be challenged by way of appeal.  The Asstt. Estate Officer forwarded the entire case to Senior Law Officer and the Senior Law Officer advised to get the opinion from the head office and marked the file back to Asstt. Estate Officer on 09.04.2019.  The dealing hand prepared a note as per the decision of Finance & Accounts committee to refund the amount without any deduction on 02.07.2020.  On 02.07.2020 the Asstt. Estate Officer forwarded the file to Senior Law Officer for opinion and the Senior Law Officer marked the file to Law Officer on 07.07.2020 and on the same day the Law Officer marked it back to Senior Law Officer with the comments that the opinion should be taken from the Chief Administrator.  Thereafter the Law Officer marked the file to Asstt. Estate Officer.  On 08.07.2020 the Estate Officer forwarded the file to Senior Law Officer to attach the order of Chief Administrator regarding opinion on 10.07.2020.  On 15.07.2020 the Estate office prepared a note to obtain the legal opinion from the advocate and send the file to Chief Administrator for approval.  On 18.07.2020 the Chief Administrator marked the file to Estate Officer for suggesting the name of the advocate.  Thereafter the Estate Officer suggested the name of the advocate and sent the file back to Chief Administrator.   On 25.07.2020 the Chief Administrator approved the name of Advocate Harsh Bunger for obtaining opinion from him and sent the file to Estate Officer.  On 27.07.2020 the Estate Officer marked the file to Senior Law Officer.  Senior Law Officer on the same day marked the file to Law Officer.  The Law Officer suggested that opinion should be demanded at the estate office level and sent the file to Senior Law Officer on 28.07.2020.  On 29.07.2020 the Senior Law Officer marked the file to Asstt. Estate Officer and on 30.07.2020 Asstt. Estate Officer marked the file to the concerned dealing hand.  Thereafter on 14.09.2020 dealing asstt. put up a note to the Asstt. Estate Officer stating that the advocate Hash Bunger was not on the panel of the appellant and therefore he should not be contacted.  On 14.09.2020 the former Estate Officer contacted the advocate Harsh Bunger and found that he could not handle the case due to ill health so he wrote to get the opinion from another experienced lawyer.  On 14.09.2020 the Asstt. Estate Officer marked the file to dealing asstt. for necessary action.  On the same day the dealing asstt. informed the Asstt. Estate Officer that advocate Bhupinder Singh had given his opinion on the same matters.  On which the name of Mr. Bhupinder Singh was proposed by the Asstt. Estate Officer and the file was forwarded to the Estate Officer.  Estate Officer agreed with the said name and the file was again sent back to the Asstt. Estate Officer and the Asstt. Estate Officer sent it back to the concerned dealing asstt.  The draft was placed before the Asstt. Estate Officer on 15.09.2020 for obtaining opinion of the counsel and the draft was despatched on 16.09.2020.  Advocate Bhupinder Singh sent his opinion to the office on 20.09.2020 and the concerned dealing asstt. put up the file before the Supdt.  On 17.09.2020 the Supdt. sent the file to Asstt. Estate Officer.  Asstt. Estate Officer forwarded the file to Estate Officer.  Estate Officer sent the file to Addl. Chief Administrator on 19.11.2020 for getting the approval from the Chief Administrator.  The Addl. Chief Administrator sent the file to Chief Administrator for approval on 09.12.2020 and the approval was given by Chief Administrator on 14.12.2020.  On 22.12.2020 the dealing asstt. put up the file for issuance of letter to the allottee and on 24.12.2020 a letter was issued to the allottee to submit his affidavit of consent within 15 days.  On non-receipt of consent affidavit from the allottee, the concerned asstt. put up the file on 21.01.2021 to get the order from the competent authority regarding implementation of the decision of State Consumer Commission.  On 22.01.2021 the Supdt. forwarded the file to Senior Law Officer and on 27.01.2021 Senior Law Officer marked the file to Law Officer.  On 28.01.2021 Law Officer prepared a note and placed it before the Senior Law Officer.  Senior Law Officer forwarded the file to Chief Administrator for required approval.  Chief Administrator thereafter directed to file an appeal in the case and sent back the file to Senior Law Officer.  Senior Law Officer marked the file to Law Officer for necessary action on 03.02.2021 and on 04.02.2021 the Law Officer put up the case to appoint a lawyer to file an appeal.  Thereafter entire file was sent to the concerned lawyer at New Delhi by way of courier.  The matter was prepared but due to Covid-19 pandemic the appeal could be prepared in July, 2021 and sent to the Asstt. Estate Officer of the appellant authority.  It is also contended that the impugned order suffers with substantive perversity and therefore the delay is liable to be condoned.  Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:

1. Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mrs. Katiji & Ors. Reported as 1988 (19) ECR 565 (S.C.); and

2. Bhupinder Kaur Vs Patel Hospital reported as 2012 CPC (1) 537.

    

   3.          We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant record.

4.           The admitted facts are that the free copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant in the first week of April, 2019.  It is also clear from the various contentions in the application seeking condonation of delay that since that date the file kept moving from one desk to another desk of the appellant seeking opinion and taking decisions.  It is also apparent from the facts contended that initially the appellant had decided to execute the impugned order and make the payment and for that purpose a letter was also issued to the complainant in 2021.  It is also apparent from the contention in the application that till January, 2021 the appellant had not decided to challenge the impugned order.  It was only when they could not contact the respondent /complainant for settlement that they had decided to file the present appeal.  As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Suo Moto in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 the period of limitation during the corona period has been extended and as the period started from 15.03.2020, the period of delay has to be condoned.  However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stated that said period needs to be condoned in the matter where the period of limitation has already expired.  The period of limitation under the statute for filing the appeal is 30 days and in the present case the 30 days had expired in May, 2019.  There is therefore a delay of more than one year even if for the sake of argument we condone the delay after 15^th March, 2020.  It is a settled proposition of law that parties are required to act diligently.  They are also required to explain the delay of each and every day.  The condonation is not a matter of right and the courts are refrained from exercising their jurisdiction to condone the delay where no sufficient reasons are shown.  It is so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfieds Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and where sufficient reasons are not shown, the courts have no discretion to condone the delay and have to dismiss the application.  The Apex 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.          It is also settled proposition of law that nobody is allowed to act in lethargic manner and continues to sit over the matter for a long period, unable to take a decision as to what action should be taken.  A person can be said to have been acted in a lethargic manner if he continues to sit over a file and takes long time for preparing a file and keep moving the file from one desk to another and not making up its mind as to the challenge of the impugned order, and this contributes to delay and such reasons certainly cannot be considered as sufficient and reasonable reasons.  Such delay could have been avoided had the parties acted with due diligence and care.  The basic test to determine whether the reasons given are reasonable or whether the party has acted with diligently has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24” where Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the criteria to determine whether the reasons given by the party are sufficient for condonation of delay or not.  The Hon’ble Supreme 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.”

6.          Hon’ble Supreme Court has also cautioned the consumer courts to not to condone the delays in routine manner in the matters covered under the Consumer Protection Act due to the special nature of the said Act.  It is so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578”, where it has been clearly observed that while dealing with the application seeking condonation of delay, the special period of limitation that has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act and the object of the Act which is expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, shall be kept in mind and object of the Act should not be allowed to be defeated.  It has been so held:

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.”

7.          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” has clearly stated that the Government Departments are under special obligations to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment.  The Hon’ble 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.’

8.          In the present case as is contended, the file kept moving from one desk to another.  In para 3 of the application it is contended by the appellant that the Senior Law Officer advised to get opinion from the Head Office and marked back the file to Asstt. Estate Officer on 09.04.2019.  In Para 4 of the same application it is mentioned that thereafter it was only on 02.07.2020 that the Asstt. Estate Officer forwarded the file to Senior Law Officer for opinion.  There is a gap of more than one year regarding which no explanation is forthcoming in the application.  No decision on the file was taken between the period from 09.04.2019 to 02.07.2020.  It is also apparent that initially the intention of the appellant was not to challenge the impugned order and it was only after expiry of more than two years that it took the decision to challenge the impugned order.

9.          For the reasons discussed above, we find no ground to condone the delay.  Application is dismissed.

10.        Since the appeal has been filed with considerable delay, the same is also dismissed in limine.