STATE COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The revision has been filed against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal on the ground that the same was filed with delay of 1167 days. Even this revision petition has been filed with a delay of 65 days. The reasons for delay in filing the revision are in paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay, which reads as under:-

(3.) Before the State Commission, it was represented that Advocate Vikas Malik to whom file was entrusted for filing appeal had filed the same in time and on the contrary the said Advocate had falsely informed that the matter is fixed for hearing of appeal though factually the appeal was filed. It was also represented that there was negligence on the part of HUDA officials. It was further represented that Advocate Vikas Malik had been removed from the penal of the Advocates of HUDA. State Commission found that the said explanation was sufficient to condone delay of 1167 days. The petitioner/appellant had given any detail as to when the matter was entrusted to Vikas Malik and when he had informed that he had filed the appeal and when HUDA came to know that the appeal had been filed. Besides this, the petitioner had disclosed as to who are the officers of HUDA who are negligent in pursuing the matter. Mere removal of the Advocate from the penal would be sufficient justification to condone delay. There is nothing to show that HUDA filed any proceedings before the Bar Council against Advocate Vikas Malik for filing the appeal and falsely informing that the appeal had been filed whereas actually no appeal had been filed. The explanation was, therefore, rightly accepted by the State Commission and the application for condonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.