Mahatma Gandhi Housing Society Ltd vs Girijadevi & 2 Ors

Taken up through video conferencing.

This revision petition has been filed on 24.05.2019 under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act 1986') in challenge to the Order dated 01.09.2017 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 455 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 18.12.2007 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (the 'District Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 823 of 2006.

The petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below with reported and admitted delay of 540 days. This delay is prior to the COVID-19 situation that occasioned in March 2020.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner society, considered the submissions on the point of condonation of delay and perused the relevant record including the application seeking condonation of delay.

One of the submissions made by the learned counsel is regarding the alleged ineligibility of the respondent complainant for the allotment of the plot, as, according to the learned counsel, the respondent complainant had some outstanding amount remaining to be paid. In this regard learned counsel also referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in Indore Development Authority vs. Atul Tiwari & Anr., civil appeal no. 7041 of 2015 and other connected civil appeals dated 11.09.2015 and has tried to contend that, as per the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the defaulters who did not make the payment in time ought to be held disentitled to get the allotment. It has also been urged that there was a re-election in the petitioner society, which had resulted in a change in its management. A new management came in place which subsequently felt inclined to prefer the present petition before this Commission and thereafter the steps were taken in this regard belatedly for that reason. Time also got consumed in the translation of the documents. The learned counsel has also tried to point out that the vakalatnama and original affidavit, which were sent by learned counsel for the petitioner society, got misplaced in mail and they had to be again sent, which also consumed considerable period of time. The submission is that for that all these reasons the delay should be condoned.

We have perused the record in the light of the submission made by learned counsel.

In so far as the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 11.09.2015 is concerned, that does not appear to have any relevant nexus with the delay which has been occasioned in filing the present petition. Whether the respondent complainant was eligible for allotment or not has nothing to do with not filing the petition within the prescribed period of limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court's order of 11.09.2015 could have been utilized with regard to the merits of the case in the proceedings that took place in the forum below, i.e. the State Commission, where the proceedings concluded on 01.09.2017, about two years subsequent to the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned counsel has been fair enough to concede that the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as has been referred to was not placed before the State Commission, where the applicability of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order on the merits of the case at hand could have been duly examined by the said forum. Be that as it may, the order dated 11.09.2015 passed in Indore Development Authority vs. Atul Tiwari & Anr., civil appeal no. 7041 of 2015 and other connected civil appeals by Hon'ble Apex Court does not at all go to help so far as the question of explaining the delay is concerned.

The ground taken regarding the re-election of the management of the society and the subsequent decision taken by the new management to agitate the matter further is again a managerial issue, quite internal to the petitioner society and falls far too short to proffer a legitimate explanation to override the legal requirement of filing the petition in time. A bald generalized statement about the time consumed in translation of the documents or the time consumed because of misplacement of certain papers again appears to be a too feeble non-specific explanation to serve for bridging up the hiatus or to explain the colossal delay with which this petition has been filed.

Ordinarily, in cases of minor delays we feel more inclined to entertain the matter on its merit and prefer to take a liberal view in condoning the delay but that does not go to mean that the statutory requirement of enacted laws can be ignored with indifference or be soft paddled in a manner that may result in complete violation of the law or its total disregard. The law on the point of limitation wherever prescribed has its own salutary object to serve and the enactment in that regard is not without reason or purpose. Eventually, in systems governed by the rule of law, there has to be a method to administer justice which has to be adhered to, albeit in lawful societies there is no other way to function than to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The act of condonation of delay, unlike any exercise of privilege or prerogative, is a lawful discretion that has to be exercised in appropriate cases, only for appropriate reasons and good grounds.

If a discretion has been granted to us, it has to be exercised judiciously keeping in perspective the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present matter when we have to see and find out whether there is some such reasonable explanation which may be utilized to lean favorably towards condonation of delay, we find no plausible, convincing or persuasive justification. Not placing Hon'ble Supreme Court's order before the State Commission at the relevant time and then taking it as a ground for condonation of delay in preferring revision before this Commission or the belated decision taken after election to agitate the concurrent findings of the two fora below or disproportionate time taken for translation work or the delay caused due to misplacement of some papers would scarcely qualify to be termed legitimate grounds of condonation. All of it may in fact even go to betray out lack of due diligence and perfunctory attitude to the law of limitation on the part of petitioner society. We, therefore, in the absence of any tenable or sustainable explanation, in the absence of sufficient cause, decline to condone the delay.

The application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

As the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, the petition also stands dismissed as such.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.