SECRETARY, GRIDCO Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA KEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 27.12.2012, whereby the appeal filed by the GRIDCO, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution, as no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Since there is a delay of more than one year in filing the revision petition, I.A. No. 4397/2014 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of as many as 467 days in filing the said petition.

(2.) The application, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose reads as under:-

(3.) It would thus be seen that this is petitioner's own case that the impugned order was conveyed to by GRIDCO to WESCO on 06.06.2013. The period of limitation prescribed for filing the revision petition against the order of the State Commission had already expired by that time. The petitioner, therefore, was expected to be extra vigilant in filing the revision petition in case it was seeking to challenge the order passed by the State Commission. The petitioner, presumably under wrong legal advice filed an application before the State Commission seeking restoration of the appeal which the State Commission had dismissed on 27.12.2012. The said application however was filed on 13.01.2014 i.e. more than seven months after the petitioner had already received a copy of the impugned order. There is absolutely no explanation for the aforesaid abnormal delay of seven months in filing the simple application seeking the restoration of the appeal which the State Commission had dismissed for non-prosecution. Though, it is vaguely alleged in the application that the decision to prefer revision petition involved various authorities in the administrative hierarchy of the petitioner corporation, there is no such averments as regards filing of the application seeking restoration of the appeal. Therefore, the period of more than seven months between 06.06.2013, when the copy of the impugned order was received by WESCO and 13.01.2014 when the application for restoration of appeal was filed before the State Commission remains practically unexplained.