IMPORTANT POINT
Delay due to administrative procedure of department is no ground for condonation of delay.

ORDER (ORAL)

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2015 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, the State Commission) in CC No. 09 of 2011. Alongwith the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 365 days has also been filed.

2. It is argued that delay was inadvertent and had occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and administrative reasons. Copy of the order dated 30.10.2015 was received by the appellant on 20.11.2015 and, thereafter, it sought necessary approvals from the Headquarters etc. and thus the delay had occurred. It is submitted that appeal should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay since the appellant has good case on merits and, therefore, appellant should be heard on merits. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 1987 2 SCC 107, G. Ramegowda, Major and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, 1988 2 SCC 142 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and Ors., 1996 3 SCC 132: (1996) 5 Supreme 75.

3. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that delay has not been properly explained.

4. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. It is settled proposition of law that matter be heard and disposed of on merits and should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay. However, in number of pronouncements the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the delay remained unexplained and is of considerable long period, the Court / Commission should not condone the delay and it is permitted to dismiss it on account of limitation.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361” has held that delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons for not being able to come to the Court within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:—

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

7. The burden is upon the applicant to show the sufficient reasons which prevented him to come to the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Basavraj & Anr. V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510” while explaining what amounts to ‘sufficient cause’ and that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, has held as under:—

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a n