HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LATA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As usual, petitioners being a public body has filed the present revision petition alongwith application for condonation of delay not one but two applications. It is a common experience of this Commission, that Govt./Public/Statutory bodies have taken a vow that they will not file Revisions/Appeals unless the same are to be accompanied by application for condonation of delay. There is a perception in the mind of the Statutory Bodies/Authorities who are having full fledged legal departments, that they are above law and provisions of Limitation does not apply to them that is why, invariably in more than 90% of the Petitions/Appeals filed by Govt. Bodies, are being accompanied by application for condonation of delay.

(2.) However, the matter does not rest here. In the present case, it appears that officials of legal department of the Petitioners Authority are either ignorant of Law of Limitation or are so negligent that they are not even aware as to how the period of limitation is to be reckoned.

(3.) In first application for condonatiion of delay filed alongwith present revision petition, no period of delay has been mentioned at all.