This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 1562 days excluding the statutory period of 90 days provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing Revision Petition. Judgment of the State Commission is dated 13.10.08 whereas the Revision Petition has been filed on 22.04.13.  Petitioner has tried to explain the delay by stating that the Petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the wrong Forum. The Writ Petition was filed before the Gujarat High Court in the year 2010 which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 08.10.10. Petitioner was asked to avail the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Not satisfied with the order of the single Judge, Petitioner filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was again dismissed on the ground of maintainability on 06.03.13.   Thereafter, the present Revision Petition was filed on 22.04.13.  We are not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the Petitioner.  There is no satisfactory explanation to condone the delay of two years in filing the Writ Petition in the High Court.  The order of the State Commission is dated 13.10.08 whereas the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2010.  Petitioner has failed to tender any valid explanation for the delay in filing the Writ Petition or not availing the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown.

          Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this Revision Petition. State Commission had dismissed the appeal on 13.10.08 on the ground of delay.  There was delay of 8 months and 25 days in filing the appeal.  State Commission concluded that the Petitioner had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 8 months and 25 days.  Statute gives 30 days to file the appeal.  The cases under the Consumer Protection Act have to be decided within a period of 90 days where no evidence is required to be taken and 150 days where evidence is required to be taken.

          Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment - Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – IV(2011)CPJ 63 (SC) - has held that while deciding the application filed 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 the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained.  Relevant observations are 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.”

Counsel for the Petitioner tried to contend that since he has a good case on merits, the delay be condoned. We did not permit him to address us on merits as we are dismissing the Revision Petition on the ground of delay as well as on the correctness of the order. Since the State Commission did not touch upon the merits of the dispute, we cannot go into the merits of the dispute in the Revision Petition. 

Dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.