IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the orders of the State Commission, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.06.2013 of the Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 153 of 2013 which was filed against the order dated 24.07.2012 of the District Forum Mysore passed in Complaint No. 1004 of 2010. The said appeal was filed by the petitioners with delay of 166 days. Along with an appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed.

2. The State Commission after considering the arguments of the parties dismissed the said application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The State Commission had also commented on the merits of the case. However, it held that delay could not be condoned since no reasonable ground for the delay had been made out by the appellants.

3. This order has been impugned before this Commission.

4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that delay has been duly explained. It is submitted that it had occurred because before filing of the appeal, the file has to pass through various desks of the petitioners. It is submitted that reasons for the delay has been very well explained in the affidavit of Shivanand V Hooli dated 08.02.2013 which was filed before the State Commission alongwith application for condonation of delay.

5. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It is admitted that there is delay of 166 days in filing the appeal against the impugned order of the District Forum. The reason for condonation of delay are mentioned in the paragraph nos. 3 to 5 of the affidavit of Shivanand V Hooli, Sales Manager of the Petitioners, on which counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraphs are reproduced as under:

“3. I submit that, subsequent to the Order passed by the Hon’ble District Forum, as per the Company procedure the Branch Office at Mangalore has to send the order copy to Zonal Office at Bangalore. The Zonal Office in Bangalore will send the order copy to Mumbai and also seeks permission for further action has to be taken before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore Mumbai Head Office has to send the Certified Order copy to Bangalore to further proceed with the matter.

4. I submit that, the Finance and Accounts Branch in turn need to send the Demand Draft for deposit of the Statutory fee towards filing the appeal to the concerned branch which are all interlink and minimum time bound process as a corporate hierarchy.

5. I submit that, for the above said reasons Appellant was not able to file the Appeal in time according to Limitation Act, 1963 and to challenge the aggrieved order, and the reasons stated above for delay is valid and bonafide and not intentional. Hence this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to allow the accompanying application.”

7. From the bare perusal of the reasons mentioned in these paragraphs, it transpires that no cogent reason has come forward for the condonation of delay. The petitioner was needed to explain the delay of each and every day which they had failed to explain. Even the reasons given are very vague. In the light of this, State Commission has rightly observed that application for condonation of delay had no merits and the reasons assigned were unsatisfactory. There is no doubt that Court has to adopt a liberal attitude while dealing with the matters relating to condonation of delay. However, the Courts cannot permit the condonation of delay in which the delay is not sufficiently explained.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held in Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the party who is seeking condonation need to produce proof of a sufficient cause. Since the condonation of delay is a discr