Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Aarogyasri Health Care Trust - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (15 Nov 2018)

Even if a party successfully shows sufficient cause, still party is not entitled for condonation of delay as a matter of right

MANU/CF/0770/2018

Consumer

The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by State Commission in First Appeal. Alongwith this revision petition, an application for condonation of delay of 211 days in filing the present revision petition has also been filed.

It is apparent that, only ground is that delay had occurred due to completion of in-house formalities before taking a decision of challenging the order of Appellate Court. There is no doubt that, while dealing with the matters relating to Revision Petition and Appeal, a liberal attitude has to be adopted by the Courts while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing said appeals or revision petitions. It is, however, the bounden duty of the applicant to explain convincing reasons for such delay and also show sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Limited, has clearly held that even if a party successfully shows sufficient cause, still the party is not entitled for condonation of delay as a matter of right. The Courts still retains the discretion to dismiss the application, observing the bonafides of the parties.

There is no doubt that petitioner is a Public Undertaking. Being public undertaking, the petitioner is under special obligation to observe the law framed by the government. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Post Master v. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi, III" has held that, "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 in-house delay in getting the sanction for filing the revision petition by no stretch of imagination can be considered sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. The Department ought to have acted faster knowing well that there is special period of limitation provided in the said Act i.e. Consumer Protection Act.

The reasons given in the application does not justifiably and reasonably explains the reasons necessitating the condonation of delay of 181 days. Application for condonation of delay is, accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, Revision Petition is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

Relevant : Ram Lal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Limited, MANU/SC/0042/1961, Post Master v. Balram Singh Patel Inaram Lodhi

Tags : DELAY CONDONATION GRANT