IMPORTANT POINT
Long delay in filing revision cannot be condoned on untenable grounds.

This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, U.P. dated 17.11.2014 in first appeal No.2212/2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and consequently dismissed the appeal.

2. The revision petition has been filed after the expiry of 90 days period of limitation as provided under Regulation 13 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 with a delay of 805 days as per the computation done by the Registry. It may be pointed out that in the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has not specified the exact quantum of delay in filing of the appeal.

3. Only explanation given for the delay in filing of the revision petition is that after receipt of the order under revision the file was sent to the concerned department for examining the desirability of filing the revision. At that stage the file due to inadvertence got tagged with some other files of disposed cases. Later on when all the files were being indexed subject file was found and it was immediately sent to the advocate for preparation of revision petition. Another reason given for delay in filing of revision petition is that some time was consumed in getting the records translated from Hindi to English.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay is reasonably explained and if the delay is not condoned the petitioner shall suffer injustice.

5. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 563 has held:—

“24. After referring various earlier decisions, taking very lenient view in condoning the delay, particularly, on the part of the Government and Government Undertaking, this Court observed as under;

“29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in exercising the courts’ discretion wherever conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings in no manner subserves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of compensation to the landlosers facilitating their rehabilitation /resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit to which they are otherwise not entitled, in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the landlosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the landlosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.”

The Court further observed:—

“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 limitati