RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner for quite some time, order was reserved in this case.

(2.) A perusal of the condonation application reveals that it has been prepared in a very casual manner. Apart from there being no supporting material such as the prescription of a doctor or description of the type of ailment and the period of treatment, the indifferent approach is evident from the fact that the application does not even indicate the number of days of delay. In this regard we may observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala Vs. Another, 2007 2 SCC 322 has held that "When a mandatory provision is not complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone delay, only on the sympathetic ground". In a very recent judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries, 2009 5 SCC 121 has held as under :-

(3.) According to Regulation No. 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the revision petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order, as the case may be. Accordingly, the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the case under consideration. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.