IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural delays are not considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay particularly for government agencies.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, HUDA & Anr. against the order dated 13.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in RP No.72 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent was given possession in the year 2003 against the offer letter dated 21.08.2003. Petitioner levied various charges on the complainant for not constructing the building on the said plot. Complainant filed a complaint bearing No.120 of 2008 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra, (in short ‘the District Forum”) alleging that in the vicinity a plot was also given to the mother of the complainant and the possession thereof was delivered only in 2006. Thus, development work was not completed till 2006 and therefore, no fee for extension or any penalty can be levied before 2006. The District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 08.01.2010 as under:—

“6. For the foregoing reasons, we accept this complaint and direct the OPs to reconsider their demand of demanding interest on the basis of the letter of possession issued by them on 27.8.2003. We further award a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be taken. File be consigned to record after due compliance.”

3. Complainant filed an execution application before the District Forum for implementation of the order dated 08.01.2010 of the District Forum passed in complain No.120 of 2008. The opposite party filed a compliance report. The District Forum after considering the material on record passed the following order on 04.6.2014:—

“4. It has been contended by learned counsel for JDs that in response to the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by this Forum, the JDs have reconsidered the demand of interest on the basis of letter of possession issued by them on 27.8.2003 and its intimation has also been given to the complainant vide letter No.17844 dated 25.10.2011 and thus, the direction of the Forum to reconsider has been complied with by the JDs. Since there was no specific direction to the OPs for which they can be directed to make compliance. The simple direction was to reconsider the demand of interest on the basis of letter of possession issued by them on 27.8.2003. The other direction to pay a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses has also been complied with.

5. Keeping in view the facts before us, we consider that there is no substance in the execution petition filed by the decree holder and same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.”

4. The complainant preferred RP No.72 of 2014 against order dated 4.6.2014 of the District Forum before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 13.3.2015 passed the following order:—

“10. After going through the entire order, it is clear that District Forum exempted the complainant from paying interest before 04.10.2006 and after that date the interest is to be calculated. So impugned order is set aside. The OPs should reconsider the demand of interest keeping in view these observations as well as the entire order dated 08.01.2010 and inform the executing court.

11. Hence the revision petition is allowed.”

5. Hence the present revision petition by the opposite parties/petitioners.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the order of the District Forum was only to reconsider the interest in the light of the order dated 08.01.2010 and accordingly compliance was submitted before the District Forum, which after fully satisfying itself dismissed the execution application filed by the complainant. The complainant preferred the revision petition before the State Commission and the State Commission has passed a fresh order,