AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHAILENDRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON order dated 25.1.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (the State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 64, 65, 66 and 67 all of 2008 is sought to be impugned in the present revision petitions.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocate, learned Counsel representing the petitioners. Revision petitions are accompanied by applications for condonation of 10 days delay. For the reasons stated in the application, we allow the said applications and condone the delay in filing the revision petitions.

(3.) ON merits of the revision petitions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on the face of the explanation put forth from the side of the petitioner before the State Commission, the State Commission was not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner as time -barred and also on merits. It was urged that decision taken by Vice -Chairman to accept the orders passed by the District Forum was against public interest and, therefore. the Secretary of the petitioner authority took a conscientious decision to challenge the order passed by the District Forum and in that process six months delay had occurred. This submission has been duly considered by the State Commission in the impugned order by observing as under: