O. RANJINI Vs. BANK MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 1462 days in filing the present revision petition. The petitioner had not filed application for condonation of delay. Vide order dated 04.01.2013, she was given an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay. It is also not out of place to mention here that the petitioner who appears to be an educated lady argued the case herself. She was offered legal aid, but she refused. The State Commission decided the case against the petitioner vide order dated 17.06.2008. She has explained the delay in the following para in her affidavit:-

(2.) All these arguments lack conviction. The Hon'ble High Court is not authorized to condone the delay of four years which took place from 17.06.2008 to the filing of the Writ Petition (C) No.3147/2012 (P). The order of the Hon'ble High Court is conspicuously silent about the said four years. The petitioner has also failed to explain the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition. There is no provision under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 wherein the petitioner is authorized to file the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. In an authority reported in M/s. Advance Scientific Equipment Ltd. & Anr. vs. West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Development Corporation Ltd., (Appeal (Civil) Nos.17068 - 17069/2010, decided on 9 July 2010) wherein it observed inter alia, as under:-

(3.) Furthermore, the Apex court in a recent authority reported in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, 2012 4 CPJ 1, was pleased to hold as under :-