IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with application for condonation of delay, Courts are supposed to adopt a liberal approach.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of State Commission Orissa dated 27.02.2015 in First Appeal No. 625 of 2014 vide which the State Commission dismissed the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing of appeal and consequently dismissed his First Appeal No. 625 of 2014 filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner electricity supply company and its Executive Engineer. The complaint was decided on merits. The preliminary objection was also taken that the services of the opposite parties were availed for commercial purpose and as such respondent was not even a consumer and could not have maintained the consumer complaint.

3. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed as under:

“In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part on contest against the O.P.s. The O.Ps are directed to restore power supply to the unit of the Complainant if not restored at present and to bear the cost of metering unit amounting to Rs.47,592/- as per their Estimate No.57 of 2012-13. The Complainant is not liable to pay the cost of metering unit. Further, the O.Ps are directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- ( Rupees Two thousand only) to the Complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order.”

4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. As the appeal was filed after the expiry of 30 days period of appeal with the delay of 59 days. The petitioner also moved an application being MA No. 1172 of 2014for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The State Commission after hearing the parties was not convinced with the explanation for the delay in filing of appeal. The application of condonation of delay was thus rejected and as a consequence the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

5. Mr. R K Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that State Commission has committed a grave error in dismissing the application for condonation of delay ignoring the explanation given for delay. It is contended that State Commission did not even bother to consider that cross appeal filed by the respondent complainant is also pending before the State Commission. Learned counsel has argued that as the appeal of the complainant is to be heard, the interest of justice demands that delay in filing of appeal by the petitioner should have been condoned and both the appeals should have been heard together. It is further contended that State Commission has failed to appreciate that the petitioner had been vigilantly pursuing his defence and the delay in filing of appeal has occurred because the petitioner being a corporate entity was required to follow certain administrative procedures before filing the revision petition and the delay caused is unintentional and it has occurred only due to administrative reasons.

6. Learned Sh. S.K.Das, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has contended that State Commission has rightly rejected the explanation for delay given by the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the order of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Surender Kumar Singhal passed in RP No. 1482 of 2013 decided on 16.05.2013 as also in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kavita Madan passed in RP No. 628 of 2013 decided on 16.08.2013.

7. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that explanation for delay which did not find favour with the State Commission was as under:

“Learned counsel for