Proddatur Municipality vs V. Madhava Reddy

ABOVE noted petitions emanate from common order dated 25.10.2011, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short as ''State Commission ''). Alongwith these petitions, applications seeking exemption from filing of certified copy of the impugned order as well as seeking condonation of delay have been filed.

BRIEF facts are that respondents/complainants filed complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ''Act '') before District Forum, Kadapa, seeking directions to the petitioner/opposite party to execute the sale deed and register the plots in question in their favour and also to give them possession of the plots and to pay interest and compensation for causing physical and mental agony as well as the costs. In its written statement, petitioner admitted that respondents were the highest bidder of the plots but they failed to deposit the full bid amount. Thus, theirbid were cancelled and therefore petitioner is not liable to register the plots in question in favour of the respondents.

DISTRICT Forum, vide order dated 2.1.2009, allowed the complaint of the respondents and directed the petitioner to execute the sale deed and deliver the vacant possession of the plots. Respondents were also directed to deposit the balance amount alongwith interest.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission but the same were dismissed for default on 25.2.2011. Thereafter, petitioner filed applications for setting aside the default order and sought restoration of the appeals. State Commission, vide impugned order dismissed the applications for restoration of the appeals on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to restore the appeals which have been dismissed for default.

AGGRIEVED by the order of State Commission, petitioner has filed these revision petitions.

IMPUGNED order was passed on 25.10.2011, whereas revision petitions have been filed on 19.4.2012 alongwith applications seeking exemption from filing of the certified copies of the impugned order. Till date, petitioner has not filed the certified copies of the impugned orders in these revision petitions. So, on this short ground alone, these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Now coming to the applications for condonation of delay, in the applications petitioner has nowhere stated about the period of delay. Applications forcondonation of delay are also absolutely vague and no ground what to talk of sufficient ground, has been mentioned. Relevant portion with regard tocondonation of delay as mentioned in para 3 to 5 of the applications are reproduced as under; "3. That the petitioner herein was informed about the impugned orders only in the month of December, 2011 and he contacted his counsel at Hyderabad and enquired about the next course of action in the matter. It was informed that to approach this Hon ''ble Court and accordingly the entire case record was sent to the petitioner. Thereafter, as a matter of departmental procedure the petitioner had to take a legal opinion from the department advocate. After giving the opinion by the departmental advocate that as a fit matter to file an appeal before thisHon ''ble Court, then the petitioner had to take the approval of the Budget for filing of this petition by the departmental heads and accordingly the approval was also taken. Finally, this counsel at New Delhi was contacted with material papers and was requested to file the case before this Hon ''ble Court. 4. Thereafter, receiving the material papers this counsel took some time for the preparation of the instant revision petition. And the same has been filed herein without any further delay. 5. That the delay caused in the above said matter is purely due to mandatory departmental procedures which the petitioner had to follow. Therefore, there is delay in the matter which is purely unintentional and not deliberate one and beyond the control of the petitioner. Therefore, keeping in view the above humble submissions, the delay caused may be condoned in the interest of the justice ".

AS per above averments, petitioner has nowhere mentioned as on which date he has applied for the certified copy of the impugned order and when he got the same. Moreover, no specific date has been mentioned as on which date petitioner contacted its counsel at Hyderabad and when the Advocate for petitioner gave its opinion and on which date necessary approval for filing the appeal was granted. Applications for condonation of delay are completely silent on these material facts.

IT is well settled that "sufficient cause as envisaged under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in each case is a question of fact. " In "R.B. Ramalingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)=I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 ", it has been observed: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition. "

FURTHER , Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) " laid down that; "It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras. "

THE mere fact that petitioner which is a municipality, is not entitled as a matter of right to have the delay condoned. Recently, Apex Court in Post Master General and Others v. Living Media India Ltd. and Another, I (2012) CLT 338 (SC)=II (2012) SLT 312=(2012) 3 SCC 563 has held, law of limitation binds everybody equally including Government and defence by Government of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. It observed ; "26. In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person-in-charge has filed any explanation for not applying the certified copy within the prescribed period. The other dates mentioned in the affidavit which we have already extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of the file and the decision taken, there is no explanation as to why such delay had occasioned. Though it was stated by the Department that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances and genuine difficulties, the fact remains that from day one the department or the person/persons concerned have not evinced diligence in prosecuting the matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps. 27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the department was possessed with competent persons familiar with Court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonationof delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled not for the benefit of a few ".

HENCE , after going through the applications for condonation of delay, we find that no sufficient cause has been shown nor any reasonable explanation has been given for not filing these petitions within the period of limitation. Thus, no ground is made out for condoning the delay in filing of these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

EVEN on merits, petitioner has no case as there is no explanation as to why after making allotment in favour of the respondents as far as back in the year 1998 and having received substantial amount, the petitioner is not executing the sale deeds. Thus, deficiency on the part of the petitioner is writ large in these cases. Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the two Fora below. These petitions are dismissed firstly, the certified copies of the impugned orders have not been filed in these petitions. Secondly, these petitions are barred by limitation and thirdly, there is no merit in these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each.

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft for the sum of Rs.20,000/- in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.

LIST for compliance on 14.9.2012. Appeal dismissed.