1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 13.06.2022 in Appeal No. 99 of 2008 of the State Commission Orissa arising out of Order dated 02.01.2008 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 351 of 2006.

2.       Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 02.01.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 13.06.2022 of the State Commission, the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition and the memo. of petition.

3.       The present revision petition has been filed with a reported delay of 162 days which according to  learned counsel is 124 days.    

4.       An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.  As the delay does not appear insignificant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being heard first on the delay condonation application in order to decide whether there is any good ground to condone the delay or not. 

5.       The submissions made by the learned counsel are no different from the grounds taken in the delay condonation application and they have been virtually repeated once again. Submission is that the impugned Order was passed on 13.06.2022 and the revision has been filed on 20.02.2023. Learned counsel admits that the free copy was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 29.07.2022 itself but the certified copy was got misplaced.  Later on the certified copy was again applied on 12.10.2022 and the certified copy was received on the next date itself on 13.12.2022.  Submission is that petitioner being a senior citizen was not keeping good health as a result of which the filing of the petition got delayed which is not intentional.  It has been submitted that, therefore, the delay should be condoned and the afore-said reason may be considered as sufficient cause for delay in filing of the petition.

6.         Ordinarily the Bench tends to adopt a liberal approach on the aspect of considering the point of delay and lean to take an indulgent view towards the side who seeks its condonation. The Bench prefers that a matter be decided on merits rather than be closed at the threshold stage i.e. on the ground of delay, but that does not imply that the Bench may ever ride roughshod over the statutory requirement regarding the law of limitation wherever it has been provided by the legislature in its wisdom. That is why, whenever there is a delay, and whenever condonation on that aspect is sought, by either side, it has to discharge the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds relying upon which such delay may be condoned. It goes without saying that such explanation has to be genuine and not an explanation just for the sake of explanation. Anything and everything said to bridge up a considerable gap of delay is not to be termed as legitimate explanation, which has to be sincere, honest and persuasively adequate and worthy of credence.

7.     The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment in this regard wherever provided.

8.       Having gone through the grounds taken in the delay condonation application the Bench feels constrained to observe that they fall far short of qualifying as sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The impugned Order was passed on 13.06.2022 and admittedly free copy was received on 29.07.2022. The award involved in this matter relates to a paltry sum and it is not difficult to see that only a person who is highly conscious about his rights would pursue a matter like this uptill the stage of National Commission.  It is not a case which relates to an ignorant person or a person who may be imputed naivety or illiteracy or unawareness. Even if the Bench proceeds to presume the plea of misplacement of the Order at an early stage there is hardly any convincing explanation which may bridge up the subsequent long hiatus of delay.  The alleged second certified copy was itself obtained on 13.10.2022.  The explanation that has been furnished is neither convincing nor sufficient.  

           In the present case the Bench does not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is palpably without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay is not at all forthcoming. As such the  Bench  has no hesitation in dismissing the application.

9.       Resultantly the petition stands dismissed on limitation.

10.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.