CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2000) 02 NCDRC CK 0006

P.S.E.B.THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs V.K.DHINGRA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 February 2000 · Citation: 2001 2 CPC 255 : 2002 2 CPJ 356

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.S.Brar , Jasbir Singh , Davinder Kaur Bhamrahs J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 348 words
1.

IT is an application for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. IT has been stated in the application that the appellant had received the certified copy of the impugned order on 9.12.1999. The appellant vide its letter dated 9.12.1999 approached the Legal Section of P.S.E.B. at Patiala for their sanction to file the appeal against the impugned order. The Legal Section of P.S.E.B., Patiala vide its letter dated 6.1.2000 accorded sanction to file the appeal and directed the appellant to contact the Senior Standing Counsel of the P.S.E.B. for engagement of the Counsel. IT is then stated that letter dated 6.1.2000 was received in the office of the appellant on 28.1.2000. IT is then stated that on receiving the above mentioned sanction, the Senior Standing Counsel of the Board was approached who detailed the Counsel to file the appeal within time. IT has not been stated in the application that on which date the relevant papers were sent to the Senior Standing Counsel of the Board and on which date he detailed the Counsel to file the appeal before the Commission.

2.

STRANGELY enough, it has not even been mentioned in the application as to where the relevant papers pertaining to the case in hand remained after 6.1.2000 to 27.1.2000. It looks that the authorities concerned do not bother to take requisite steps to file the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation. They take up the matter in a very casual manner, perhaps, presuming that no limitation is prescribed for filing the appeals in such cases. Neither any sufficient cause has been shown in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation nor any bona fide action taken by the appellant to pursue the matter in order to ensure the filing of the appeal within time has been brought to our notice.

In these circumstances, we do not find any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. This application is, thus, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time. Appeal dismissed.