1.       The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated  12-03-2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission has declined to condone the extra ordinary delay of 253 days in filing the Appeal.

2.       We may mention here that the District Forum had decided the Complaint No.1545/2012 (Old No.1021/2008) on 10-02-2017. The Appeal was filed with a delay of 253 days. The application seeking condonation of delay filed along with the Appeal before the State Commission is consisted of three paragraphs. For ready reference the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application are reproduced below:

          "2.     That the Appellant is a Government undertaking. After receiving the copy of the judgment for appeal, File was forwarded to the Law Department, in which by the Department after obtaining opinion at different levels and opinion of advocate was obtained, but in the meantime in the Legal Department and Deputy Commissioner Office file was misplaced and Appeal could not have filed. In the meantime, on 18-08-2017 upon receiving a Contempt Petition then the counsel on 19-09-2017 by submitting an Application obtained records from the court and submitted an application for producing his case. Upon which by the Law Department on dated 03-10-2017 obtained the certified copies of the judgment passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur, Third. On the original case file the correspondence between zone 6 JDA and State Government continuously remained pending. And upon knowledge delay caused in obtaining the documents. Whereupon the entries filed were sought from zone 7 which received on 16-11-2017. The Complainant's case being pending in zone - 2 and zone - 6, due to having jurisdiction dispute and Law Department took time in deciding it. Thereafter, by the office delay has caused in depositing the FDR and FDR deposited on dated. In this way, delay caused in producing the present Appeal.

          3.       That this delay has caused in seeking documents by the Appellant through his counsel, due to misplacing of files between the department and as the matter relating to different zones and in depositing FDR and the object of the Appellant never remained to non-comply any order of learned District Forum and to ignore the same."

3.       The State Commission had considered the explanation given in the aforesaid paragraphs and has come to the conclusion that the explanation given is very vague and does not inspire confidence.

4.       We have also perused the averments made in the paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay filed along with the Appeal. We are also of the view that the explanation given is very vague. Neither any date nor the names of the persons or the officers to whom the file was sent are mentioned except that the Contempt Petition was received on 18-08-2017 and steps were taken thereafter.

5.       The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that action has been taken against the persons who have been found to be responsible for causing the delay. Be that as it may, nothing has been mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, this submission appears to be an afterthought and cannot be taken into consideration. The Learned Counsel further relied upon two decisions of the National Commission, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Milind Kashirao Jichkar, 2015 NCJ 321 (NC) and Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Ramsiya Gupta, 2014 NCJ 847 (NC), wherein delay has been condoned by the Commission. The facts of these two cases relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner are entirely different from the case on hand. As we have also come to the conclusion that in the application for condonation of delay sufficient reasons have not been mentioned, the State Commission has rightly declined to condone the delay.

6.       We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission in our Revisional Jurisdiction. The Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.