IMPORTANT POINT
No undue indulgence can be shown to a Government instrumentality in matter of limitation.

These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), have been filed by the Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board), Nagpur, Maharashtra, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints, against a common order, dated 24.08.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 397 to 408 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while modifying the direction given by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nagpur (for short “the District Forum”), whereby the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to get sanction of the layout plan of the plots in question, has partly allowed the Appeals. In the opinion of the State Commission, since State Highway No. 344, which was declared as the National Highway No. 353C as per GR dated 05.09.2014 of the Government of India, was abutting the plots in dispute, the said direction of the District Forum was unexecutable; there was no fault on the part of the Complainants in not getting sanction of the layout plan; it was the fault on the part of the Petitioner in not getting sanction of the layout plan before giving public advertisement and in ignoring the conditions about leaving the space adjoining to the highway; and, therefore, the Complainants were entitled to the reasonable compensation in lieu of the plots and penalty. Consequently, while substituting the said direction with a direction to the Petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the Complainants along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of respective Complaints till realization, towards the loss suffered by them due to cancellation of the Scheme of the plots by the Petitioner, the State Commission maintained the remaining directions of the District Forum, viz., the Petitioner shall pay further compensation of Rs.4000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to each of the Complainants; and the Complaints shall stand dismissed as against Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4, i.e. Respondents No. 2 to 4 in these Revision Petitions.

2. The Appeals had been preferred by the Petitioner against 12 identical orders, all dated 07.12.2007, passed by the District Forum in Complaints No. 47 to 58 of 2007, filed by the Complainants. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaints and issued the afore-stated directions.

3. Still, not satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, in the afore-noted Appeals, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority is before us in the present Revision Petitions.

4. It is pointed out by the office that all the Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 79 days in filing the same. Identical applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, have been filed alongwith the Revision Petitions. In paragraphs no. 3 to 10 of the said applications, the Petitioner has furnished the following explanation:

“3. The Petitioner respectfully submits that there is some delay in filing the above Revision Petition against the Impugned Order/judgment dated 24.08.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra – Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur which is explained hereinbelow.

4. The Petitioner’s Counsel in State Commission Shri Hitesh N. Verma gave his opinion dated 19.12.2015 stating that the Hon’ble State Commission failed to take into consideration the factual aspects involved in the matter besides legal infirmities and advised the Petitioner Board to challenge the Impugned Order/judgment dated 24.08.2015 before the National Commission at the earliest. …

5. That, after receiving the certified copy of the order passed by the State Commission, the same was forwarded to the legal department of the Petitioner. The said department thereafter sought opinion of the counsel who c