1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 09.01.2019 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1221/2010, whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed.

2.       Alongwith the Revision Petition, IA/1000/2022, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, there is a delay of 922 days in filing the Revision Petition. However, according to the computation done by the Registry, there is a delay of 1022 days.

3.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on IA/1000/2022, application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record.

4.       Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the after receiving the order passed from the State Commission, the Petitioner sought legal opinion from its panel lawyer on 25.01.2019. Thereafter, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad, vide letter dated 08.01.2020, advised the Nodal Office, Delhi to file the Revision Petition. The said approval was issued on 16.01.2020 but the Petition was not filed due to pandemic. It is stated in the application that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is procedural in nature which occurred due to involvement of three offices i.e. SRO Vatva, ACC Zonal Office Gujarat and Nodal office at Delhi. It was also submitted that translation of the documents in vernacular language to English language also took some time. It was further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.03 of 2020, vide order dated 23.03.2020 directed that the period of limitation shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till further order. The delay in filing the Revision Petition, is neither intentional nor deliberate.

5.       The ground taken by the Petitioner is that they sought legal opinion from their panel lawyer on 25.01.2019. Thereafter, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad, vide letter dated 08.01.2020, advised the Nodal Office Delhi to file the Revision Petition. After taking the opinion from the panel lawyer on 25.01.2019, the Zonal Office of the Petitioner took almost one year in taking the decision upto 08.01.2020 to obtain approval to file the Revision Petition, for which no explanation has been given. Further, the Petitioner took the ground that translation of documents from Vernacular to English language took some time. Time taken to get the documents translated, however, has not been mentioned. The judgment relied by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.03 of 2020 (supra) is only partly applicable in the instant case as only the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 was extended till further orders vide the above order. There was undue and unreasonable delay from 25.01.2019 to 15.03.2020 which has not been explained.

6.       From the above, it is seen that the Petitioner remained inactive for a fairly long time and has not acted diligently. The Apex Court held that settled legal proposition of law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, though it may harshly affect a particular party.  The Appellant has not been able to give adequate and sufficient reason which prevented them to approach this Commission within the limitation. 

7.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the party who has not acted diligently or remains inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)” has also described the test for determining whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"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.”

8.       Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons which prevented them to come to the Court/Commission within the stipulated period of limitation.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 has held as  under:

“It is, however, necessary to emphasise 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 condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condoning delay 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.”

9.       The burden is on the applicant to show that there was sufficient cause for the delay.  The expression ‘sufficient cause’ has been discussed and defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj&Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510, as under:

“Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence.  The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man.  In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bonafide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”.  However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever he court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.  The court has to examine whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd.  V. Bhootnath Banerjee &Ors, AIR 1964 SC 1336; LalaMatadin V. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal V. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 L2011 AIR SEW 1233); and ManibenDevraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412).

It is a settle legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.  The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.  “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil.  A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.”  The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.  The legal maxim “dura lexsedlex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.  It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

………..

The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.  No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever.  The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay.  In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature”. 

10.     Also in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has warned the Commissions to keep in mind while dealing with such applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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."

11.     Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 held  that  the  departments are not absolved from observing the period of limitation prescribed by the statute. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.

29.  In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree ofprocedural red-tape in the process. 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. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.”

12.     In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the delay.  The application for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the Revision Petition is also dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.