ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short “the State Commission”), dated 06.02.2019 whereby the Appeal No.1579/2010 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Since the present Revision Petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation and is delayed by 97 days, an application IA No.14183 of 2019 for condonation of delay has also been filed by the -2- Petitioner along with the Revision Petition. Condonation of delay is sought on the following grounds: “3. That the impugned order was passed on 06.02.2019 in absence of the counsel representing the revisionist board. After being apprised of the same, the authorities concerned took time to take the final decision to challenge the same by filing the Revision before this Hon’ble Commission. Ultimately, vide order dated 17.07.2019, Shri A. P. Singh, Executive Engineer, M.P. Housing & Infrastructure Development Board, Division Rewa was appointed as the OIC for the purpose. Thereafter, sometime is taken in collecting the relevant documents an getting the same translated/retyped.” 3. We have heard the arguments. 4. It is a settled preposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The applicant is required to explain the delay of each and every day and also has to show his bonafide and that there was sufficient causes which were beyond his control stopping him to come to court within limitation and then only, this Commission can exercise its discretion in favour of such applicant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that where the applicant has failed to explain sufficient reasons, the court should not exercise its discretion in favour of such a party because condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the court shall dismiss such an 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 -3- 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. The test to determine as to what are the sufficient casues on which the delay can be condoned, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held so in the case of “R. B. Ramlingam vs. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) CLJ (SC) 24: "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. Also in the case of “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned this Commission to keep in mind the special nature of the Act while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay and should not routinely exercise its discretion of condonation of delay. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “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 -4- 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. This Commission in the case of “Post Master vs. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III (2018) CPJ 53 (NC)” has held that the Government Departments do not hold any special status and they are equal before the law. It is further held that they are under obligation to perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The Commission has held as under: “29. 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. The Petitioner, therefore, has to explain the delay by showing sufficient causes. The only reason for delay is mentioned in para (3) of the application which is that the Counsel representing the Petitioner Board did not attend the proceedings. After he apprised about the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution, the authorities further took more time to take final decision for filing the Revision Petition. The grounds are very vague. No date is given as to when the counsel representing the Petitioner Board before the State Commission informed the Petitioner about dismissal of their case. No reasonable ground for such delay has been -5- disclosed in the application except that the authorities took time to take final decisions. Being Government Departments, they must be aware that the law requires them to file the Revision Petition within 90 days and they needed to take all decisions relating to that within that period and shall file the Revision Petitions within the period of limitation. Merely by saying that they took time to take a final decision cannot be terms a sufficient ground. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rafiq vs. Munshilal, AIR 1981 State Commission 1400”. Para (3) of the said judgment is reproduced as under: “3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr. A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe he is better informed on this matter. Ignorance in this -6- behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his 511power and expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr. A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs.200/- should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr. A.K.Sanghi. 10. It is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has exercised its discretion in favour of the party on the ground that the party was a villager and belonged to rural area and had no knowledge of the court procedure. In the present case, the party is a Government Department and it cannot be said that they were not aware of the procedure or the law. In view of this, the findings discussed by us, is distinguishable. -7- 11. We found no reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 97 days. The application is dismissed. Revision Petition Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed in limine. | 
