The High Court under Article 227 reviews lower tribunal orders focusing on merits and procedural propriety, ensuring sufficient grounds are presented for delay condonation in revisions.

JUDGMENT :

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Heard Mr. Kakodkar for the Petitioner and Mr. Patel for the Respondents.

4. The legality or otherwise of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 20.09.2023, is questioned in the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Kakodkar appearing for the Petitioner would submit that a Revision was filed by the Petitioner before the National Commission along with the Application for condonation of delay. A reply was filed on behalf of the Respondents and thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner. He submits that the National Commission by the impugned order dismissed the delay Application without considering the grounds mentioned therein and the fact that the Petitioner was ready and willing to produce necessary documents to support her contentions.

6. Mr. Kakodkar would submit that the Petitioner has a very strong case on merits and the delay is only of 125 days, which was sufficiently explained and could have been condoned.

7. Mr. Kakodkar submits that after the order was passed by the State Commission in an Appeal, the Petitioner engaged an Advocate from Delhi for the purpose of filing the Revision. She forwarded all the documents as well as the affidavit within 30 days, however, due to shifting of the office premises of the office of the Advocate at Delhi, the papers were misplaced.

8. Mr. Kakodkar submits that during the same time, the husband of the Petitioner was ill and therefore, she was unable to contact her Advocate at Delhi. He submits that thereafter, the papers were again forwarded and accordingly, the Revision was filed with a delay of 125 days.

9. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the Tribunal on extraneous grounds and without giving opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the documents, rejected the Application, thereby refusing to entertain the Revision.

10. Mr. Kakodkar submits that the order is passed by the National Commission, which is the Tribunal and therefore, the order passed by such Tribunal could be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court as held in the case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877

11. Mr. Kakodkar while placing reliance in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, would submit that the delay which is of only 125 days could have been liberally considered and condoned thereby allowing the Petitioner to argue the matter on merits.

12. Mr. Kakodkar also placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Rafiq & Another Vs. Munshilala & Another, AIR 1981 SC 1400 ;

(ii) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 ;

(iii) GMG Engineering Industries & Others Vs. Issa Green Power Solution & Others, (2015) 15 SCC 659;

(iv) Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More & Others, (2019) 6 SCC 387 ;

(v) Sridevi Datla Vs. Union of India & Others, (2021) 5 SCC 321 and

(vi) M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 2011 DELHI 174.

13. The rejoinder affidavit is also filed today refuting the allegations made in the reply affidavit which is taken on record.

14. Per contra Mr. Patel appearing for the Respondents would submit that the grounds which are mentioned in the Application filed before the National Commission are casually dr