HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH SATIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the petitioner/opposite party has challenged the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No.867 of 2006 whereby the State Commission has partly accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner Authority and modified the order dated 25.1.2006 passed by the District Forum, Faridabad in favour of the respondent/complainant. The petitioner not being satisfied with the impugned order, has preferred this revision petition for further relief. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

(2.) We have perused the application and heard learned Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioners and learned Shri Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate for the respondent. It is seen from the application that there is a delay of 344 days in filing the revision petition. Following explanation has been given in the application in support of the request for condonation of delay in question:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated that the petitioner is a Government authority and the delay in filing the revision petition is on account of the procedures followed by the Authority in such matters and that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and as such may be condoned. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed condonation of this inordinate delay in filing the revision petition for which, according to him, there is no convincing explanation given by the petitioner Authority.