HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. A. RAM NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana Panchkula dated 20.12.2011 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the order of the District Forum Panchkula which reads as under:

(2.) THE revision petition, however, has been filed after the expiry of 90 days of period of limitation as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 with the delay of 112 days as per the Registry and 108 days as per the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay. The explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition is given in para 2 of the application for condonation of delay which is reproduced thus: That after receipt of the copy of the impugned order from the counsel for the petitioner, the same was analysed by the petitioner in view of the financial implications and policy issues involved therein. Considering the importance of the matter, it was thereafter decided by the petitioner that revision petition may be filed challenging the orders passed by the forums below. Hence, necessary approvals were taken for filing the said revision petition. The governmental procedures in respect of seeking sanctions, collecting relevant documents form concerned departments and preparing and filing the present revision petition has resulted in unavoidable delay of 108 days, which is unintentional, unavoidable and highly regretted.

(3.) LD . Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the delay caused in filing of revision petition is unintentional and it has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is a government organization and it has nothing to gain by filing the revision petition. It is further argued that petitioner has a strong case on merits and if the delay is not condoned, the petitioner would suffer grave injustice. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Nagaland V. Lipok Ao : (2005) 3 SCC 752, Bhag Singh & Ors. Vs. Major Daljit Singh & Ors. : 1987 Supp. SCC 685 and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy : (1998) 7 SCC 123.