RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. MURALI LAL JAIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner on 29.5.2002 against the order of the State Commission dated 28.1.2002. The Commission has fixed three months' time to file a revision petition against the order of the State Commission whereas the petition has been filed after a period of 4 months i.e. delay of one month in filing the petition.

(2.) In the application for condonation of delay, explanation given for the delay relates to examination of the matter at various levels before taking a decision to file the revision petition and also that majority of the documents were in vernacular and had to be translated in English. We find no force in this explanation. All this could have been done within the 90 days period fixed by the Commission for filing the revision petition vide our order dated 19.11.2001 in Kerala Protection Centre v. District Executive Officer, 2002 CTJ 264 (CP). We find this petition is clearly barred by limitation. We find, no sufficient grounds have been adduced before us to condone the delay. This revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. Even on merits, we see the only serious question relates to whether the outstanding amount is to be recovered in instalments as in Hire Purchase or in a lumpsum as the cash purchase. The District Forum has examined this question at length. In the complaint, the complainant has quoted a letter number of the Resident Officer of this petitioner Board having accepted the request of the complainant to treat the case as that of Hire Purchase and endorsed the letter to his superior i.e. Resident Engineer Alwar. In the written version, the petitioner is silent on this point in its para-wise reply. This amounts to admission of this fact on his part. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have, in our view, correctly held that the complainant shall pay the outstanding amount in instalments treating them as a case of Hire Purchase. We see no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission.

(3.) Both on limitation and merits - we are unable to entertain the revision petition filed by the petitioner Board - hence dismissed. No order on costs. Revision Petition dismissed.