AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent has filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
THE basic grounds for filing the complaint were the raising of five bills during the period of March 1998 to July 1999 for various amounts, but as per complainant, no amount was outstanding. The matter was taken-up by the complainant with the respondent, but when the matter was not getting sorted out a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint in following terms: "in Forum''s opinion as per reply and evidence the bill Ex. C12 for Rs. 2,19,065 payable beyond due date needs rectification. Respondent has stated in his reply that it is on the advice of audit party this bill was over-hauled and an extra amount of Rs. 1,90,692 and electricity duty amounting to Rs. 5,686 was added in the bill which respondent claimed is for the months of February and March, 1999. Respondent''s reasoning for over-hauling the account of the consumer is that previous bills which were sent on the low average, but since complainant''s consumption was high the actual bill was sent. In Forum''s opinion respondent could not take re-course the basis of audit report to burden complainant by over-hauling his account and imposing huge amount in the bill. A perusal of pleadings and evidence merits rectification of the bill Ex. C12 and in Forum''s opinion the amount of Rs. 1,90,692 and electricity of Rs. 5,686 is to be deleted. Respondent is directed to refund this amount which was deposited by complainant on the pain of disconnection with surcharge. Ordered accordingly. " Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us.
At the threshold level, we see that there is a delay of 219 days in filing this revision petition, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said application read as follows: "3. That pursuant to the order dated 24. 9. 2007, the certified copy of the impugned order was applied on the same day and the same was prepared on 26. 9. 2007 and delivered on 27. 9. 2007. Thereafter, the file was sent to the office of the Legal Remembrancer, Power Utilities, Haryana, for opinion when it was decided to challenge the impugned order by filing the Revision Petition. Thereafter, the relevant file was sent to the concerned office at Rewari. The file was handed over to concerned Advocate at New Delhi vide Memo No. SPL-I (SCC-10-05) 07 dated 7. 11. 2007. Thereafter, the Counsel enquired for necessary documents vide his letter dated 4. 12. 2007 by the petitioner Department Authority and for the relevant papers including the entire file pertaining to the matters in the State Commission. The papers were thereafter called for from the Counsel of the petitioner before the State Commission which were handed over to the Advocate at New Delhi.
That after receiving all the relevant documents of the petitioner-department, the Counsel for the petitioner took some time in preparing the said revision petition and for typing the relevant documents annexed to this Revision Petition.
That since the entire process involved the movement of the file concerned, through various Government offices and thereafter to obtain the records of the cases took time, the delay has occurred in filing the Revision Petition.
That the delay in filing the revision petition has been actuated by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and is not intentional or deliberate. In any event, the petitioners have established a good case on merits and the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that the delay of 219 days in filing the present Revision Petition be condoned.
That the delay so occasioned is purely unintentional and bona fide and has occurred beyond the control of the petitioner. Further, there is no reason as to why the impugned order would not have been challenged. The petitioner most humbly submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petition. "
WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also carefully gone through the application for condonation of delay. In our view, delay has not been sufficiently explained from 4. 12. 2000 onwards. Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department, especially, when a right has been created in favour of one of the parties. There is delay of 219 days, it is not a question of delay of few days or a month or so, there is delay of over seven months in filing the revision petition after taking into consideration the period of 90 days permissible for filing the revision petition. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed as not disclosing sufficient cause to condone the delay in question. Revision petition too is dismissed as barred by limitation. Revision Petition dismissed.