EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION-I; SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER; U P POWER CORPORATION LTD Vs. MUKUT BIHARI SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Commission dismissed the appeal because it was delayed by 750 days. The Opposite Party No.1, Distribution Division, Unnao, and its remaining functionaries which are arrayed as OPs 2 & 3 were proceeded against ex -parte before the District Forum. However, the OPs were aware of the pendency of this complaint case No. 184 of 2009 and as is apparent from the order passed on 02.11.2011 by the District Forum. The order dated 02.011.2011 goes to show that petitioners/OPs had filed objection petition before the Executing Court. The complainant had part performed the decree before 02.11.2011. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. The State Commission placed reliance on Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Naresh Singh, 2013 1 CPJ 460 , UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandy, 2009 4 CPJ 217, Delhi Development Authority Vs. V.P. Narayanan, 2011 4 CPJ 155, Anshul Aggarwal Vs. NOIDA, 2011 4 CPJ 63, Civil Appeal No. 2474 -2475 of 2012, titled Chief Post Master General & Ors., Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE State Commission also made the following observations : -

(3.) THE delay in the State Commission order should have rung the alarm bells, but it had no effect upon the petitioners / opposite parties. The revision petition filed by them is further delayed by 57 days'. In the application for condonation of delay, it is explained that the petitioners were communicated of the impugned order on 04.05.2014 and copy of the said order was received by the petitioner No.1 in its office on 20.05.2014. The 16 days' delay has not been explained. The office sent the order to the Head Office on 10.06.2014. Again, the delay of 20 days' was not explained. The file was sent to the legal department on 20.06.2014. There is no explanation, why, the Department sat over the file for 10 days. In the second week of July, 2014, the Head Office decided to file the revision petition. There is delay of 30 -35 days which was not explained. In the third week of July, 2014, the pairokar met with the counsel in New Delhi who asked them to produce the entire file which was provided in mid -August, 2014. No reason has been given for this delay. On 09.09.2014, the affidavit of petitioner No.1 was sworn in. Thereafter, this revision petition was filed before this Commission on 10.09.2014. The day -to -day delay has not been explained.