NATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Vs. SHELDON MANUFACTURING INC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 211 days in filing this revision petition. The gist of the explanation given by the petitioner is this. The petitioner received the order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula on 7.5.2012. The said order was put up before the Director of Petitioner Institute in the middle of May, 2012, after lapse of two months and one week. The Director of the petitioner requisitioned for the office case file. Legal opinion was sought by the petitioner Institute vide letter dated 31.5.2012 from the Advocate who conducted the case. The legal opinion was received on 10.7.2012 sent by Law Expert dated, 15.6.2012. Consequently, another two months were lost in obtaining legal opinion. Such like steps should have been taken promptly and within the time of limitation. The petitioner Institute opined that the order passed by the District Forum was correct and that of the State Commission should be challenged. The opinion from another Lawyer from Supreme Court, whose name was not disclosed, was sought. After receipt of the second legal opinion, it was sent to the Law Section at Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Head Quarters vide letter dated 6.8.2012 which was received in the H.Q. on 8.8.2012. The record was called from Law Section of ICAR. New file was opened and the case was called from the petitioner Institute. In the months of September and October, 2012, requested the Panel Advocate who conducted the cases at District Forum and State Commission to send the complete files. The files were received in the month of November, 2012. Due to inadvertence, the complete order passed by the State Commission was not sent to the Law Section of ICAR and accordingly a letter dated 6.12.2012 to that effect was also received by the ICAR. The said impugned order passed by the State Commission was received in the Law Section on 11.12.2012. All the files were put before the Assistant Legal Advisor in the middle of December, 2012, who, thereafter recommended that appeal be filed in this matter. The Assistant Legal Advisor after going through the records and opinion of the Advocate, submitted the file for approval for filing the revision petition to the competent authority, i.e., Director General, ICAR, through proper channel on 28.12.2012. The file was received after approval for filing re vision petition on 31.12.2012 and was received by the present Counsel on 9.1.2013. Thereafter, the revision petition was prepared and got signed by the concerned Director and the same was received by the Advocate on 26.2.2013 and, thereafter, the same was filed before this Commission on 1.3.2013.

(2.) It was averred that under these circumstances, the delay should be condoned.

(3.) First of all, the delay explained by the petitioner is merely a lame excuse. Secondly the said application is vague, evasive and leads the Commission, nowhere. Dr. A.K. Srivastava, Director of Petitioner Institute did not mention the name of the Advocate, the Director, names of Legal Expert, the name of the Supreme Court Advocate. Such like stories can be created at any time. There was no prompt action on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was being corresponded through post, etc. No particular person was appointed to get the work done to reach the office then and there. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides summary procedure and there are fixed periods of limitation for deciding the cases. The case is hopelessly barred by time. This view finds force from the following authorities: