RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. VISHNU CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The filing of this revision petition was delayed by 169 days. The petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay. It is explained that file was sent to legal department for taking opinion as to the impugned order was liable to be challenged or not. Mr. Jain, Advocate gave his opinion and it was sent to the legal department and the legal department opined that the impugned order dated 19.7.2011 should be challenged before this Commission. The concerned officer of the Board after collecting the entire file came to Delhi and handed over the same for filing revision petition before this Commission. It was prayed that under these circumstances delay of 169 days should be condoned.

(2.) We find no merit in these arguments. The expression "sufficient cause" cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of Limitation Act. There mustbe some cause which can be termed as a "sufficient one" for the purpose of delay of condonation. The petitioner has advanced fragile explanation which does not impress us at all. The following authorities apply to this case:

(3.) In a recent authority reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited and Another, 2012 2 SLT 312 , it was laid down: