I D Kaushik vs S.C. KANSAL , Hewo Urban Estate And Town And Country

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 539/2012 � I.D. Kaushik Vs. The HEWO, Urban Estate and Town & Country Planning Department Employees Welfare Organisation (HEWO) & Anr. dismissing appeal on the ground of delay of 870 days.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for allotment of a flat at Gurgaon to the respondent but flat was not allotted, hence, complaint was filed. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 12.11.2009 dismissed complaint on the ground that intimation regarding extension of scheme was sent at the address provided by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to apply within stipulated period against which order appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by impugned order.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal on the count of delay. It appears that appeal was filed before the State Commission with an inordinate delay of 870 days. It was mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that order dated 12.11.2009 passed by District Forum was despatched on 16.11.2009. Certified copy was misplaced by the petitioner and could not be traced in spite of best efforts. Learned State Commission has rightly dismissed application for condonation of delay as there was inordinate delay of 21/2 years. No cogent or satisfactory explanation for delay was given in the application before the State Commission. Petitioner himself is a retired IAS officer and it is not expected from such an officer that he will prefer appeal after 870 days only on the count of misplacement of certified copy of the order of the District Forum. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (2000) 10 SCC 174 � Deepak Parshad Vs. Automobile Products of India in which not condoning of delay of 153 days by the High Court was set aside and matter was remanded back to the High Court for deciding it on merits. Facts of the aforesaid case are not applicable to the present case as in the present case only on count of misplacement of certified copy of the impugned order, delay of 870 days has occasioned. Petitioner was expected to explain satisfactorily delay in filing appeal and he had miserably failed to explain the delay and the learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal on the count of delay.

CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is dismissed at admission state with no order as to cost.