UNION OF INDIA Vs. CH JOGIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condoning the delay of 34 days in presenting the appeal by the opposite parties in CC. No.509/1995 questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum therein dated 13.10.1998. The order of the District Forum was despatched on 31.10.1998. In the affidavit of the Assistant Postmaster-General (Staff and Vigilance) in the office of the Chief Postmaster-General, A. P. Circle, Hyderabad in support of the application for condoning the delay, it is stated that free certified copy of the order was received by the petitioners/appellants on 9.11.1998. The last date for presenting the appeal was, therefore, 9.12.1998. The appeal was presented on 13.1.1999. The reason for the delay was stated by him in his affidavit as follows : "after receiving the certified true copy of the order dated 13.10.1998, the appellants herein examined the case and obtained legal opinion of their Counsel before the District Forum, who has opined that this is a fit case for appeal before this Hon'ble Commission. On examination of the matter, the appellants felt that this is a fit case for appeal and accordingly advised the Standing Counsel in the State Commission to file an appeal. In this process there is a delay of 34 days as the appeal ought to have filed on 9.12.1998. The said delay is not intentional but because of the official procedure to be followed as stated supra. "

(2.) In Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority V/s. O. P. Gauba,1995 3 CPJ 18 (NC), the National Commission held as follows : "the appeal by DDA has been filed delayed by 38 days and is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. It is stated therein that the copy of the order dated 10.3.1993 does not appear to have been received by D. D. A. , and so a copy of the order was obtained on 8.4.1993. The grounds for delay are given because the order had to be examined from all aspects and at various levels before a decision to file this appeal could be given. In our view this does not constitute a valid and sufficient cause for the exercise of our discretion to condone the delay. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion. It was the duty of the D. D. A. to establish as to how the matter was dealt with at all levels and each day's delay had to be satisfactorily explained. Inter office consultation for prolonged periods cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity because the process of working in D. D. A. has resulted in the delay. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the appeal is dismissed as barred by time. "

(3.) We also held in General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom V/s. Rajesh Kumar, Order in FA. IA. No.1398/99 and FA. SR. No.2905/99, dated 2.11.1999, as follows : "the delay in presenting the appeal is sought to be explained in the affidavit as follows : "after receiving the certified true copy of the order dated 19.7.1999 the appellants herein examined the case and obtained legal opinion of their Counsel before the District Forum who has opined that this is a fit case for appeal before the Hon'ble Commission. On examination of the matter the appellants felt that this is a fit case for appeal and accordingly as per the official procedure the matter was referred to Headquarters office for their opinion and also advice the Standing Counsel in the State Commission to file an appeal. In this process there is delay of 31 days in filing the appeal, as the appeal ought to have filed on 17.8.1999. The said delay is not intentional but because of the official procedure to be followed as stated supra. " we do not find sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay. The learned Counsel, Mr. K. N. V. Radhakrishna, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the authorities concerned had to follow the procedure for preferring the appeals. If that is so, the Parliament should be apprised of the same and law should be amended to suit the convenience of each department of the Central Government concerned. The Parliament in its wisdom has fixed only 30 days for preferring appeals to the State Commission, appeals to the National Commission, as well as appeals to the Supreme Court from the orders of the National Commission. Under the circumstances the procedural requirements of the various departments should be designed so as to facilitate filing of appeals within the statutory limitation period fixed by the Parliament and not the other way. We find that in several cases procedural requirements are set up for explaining away delays extending upto even six months. In between, it is also stated some times that the relevant order was misplaced and searching for it had taken several months. It is most unfortunate that even responsible authorities set up procedural reasons for the delays when decisions could be taken without delay for preferring an appeal. It is high time that the departments tune themselves up for filing appeals within the time allowed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . " In the circumstances, we do not find any ground for condoning the delay. FA. IA. No.93/1999 is, therefore, dismissed and consequently FA. (SR.) No.65/1999 is rejected. I. A. dismissed.