PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. TAVINDER KAUR AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.5.2002 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 5.12.2001 of District Forum as being barred by limitation.

(2.) In terms of said order dated 5.12.2001, the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed and petitioners/opposite parties were directed to allot a plot admeasuring 500 square yards at the rate prevailing on 1.8.1995, to her. In the appeal filed against this order, the petitioners also filed application seeking condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal (copy at p 53-54). Grounds on which delay was sought to be condoned have been set out in Para No. 2 of the application. As is manifest from aforesaid order dated 16.5.2002, the State Commission was of the view that grounds in said para are vague inasmuch as it was not stated therein as to when the certified copy of District Forum order dated 5.11.2001 was sent by the Estate Officer to the Chief Administrator and as to on which date legal opinion was sought regarding filing of appeal. Obviously, the view taken by State Commission cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Order passed in Appeal No. ? of 1996 (arising our of SLP (Civil) No. 5445 of 1996)- Secretary, Kerala Electricity Board & Ors. v. Malabar Plastic Industries, decided by the Supreme Court on 26.7.1996 on which reliance was placed on behalf of petitioners, was rendered on the facts of that case and it has no applicability to the facts of present case.

(3.) Accordingly, the revision is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.