IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Each day’s delay - The petitioner failed to explain or show sufficient reason for delay of each day as required under the law. In the instant case, the cause shown for delay that the issue pertains to the delay in entirely departmental proceeding is insufficient.
(2) Protracted delay - Translation of records from Hindi to English is a routine process which takes limited time, which is obviously provisioned for within the period of 90 days provided. There is no apparent justification for such undue and protracted delay in taking necessary action in the matter.

ORDER (ORAL)

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 384 days in filing of this Revision Petition. The petitioner filed IA No. 9497 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay for 383 days. As per the said IA, the impugned order was passed on 08.04.2022. Thereafter, the concerned Advocate perused the documents/ records and final judgment and submitted his report to the Chief Legal Advisor of the Petitioner for further decision. The Chief Legal Advisor perused the impugned order and the report submitted and recommended for filing the instant Revision Petition. Thereafter on 09.12.2022, the panel counsel of the Lucknow Development Authority, Mr. UN Mishra, learned Advocate was assigned to file the Revision Petition and all related documents were forwarded on 07.01.2023 for drafting and filing of the same. Since several documents were in Hindi the same were translated, and the petition was drafted and forwarded to the department for approval. After approval of the petition, the affidavits were signed and attested by the authorized representative in Delhi on 16.07.2023.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay occurred in filing of the present revision petition due to inherent Departmental procedures. According to him the delay is natural, because in Government Office some formalities are required to be completed in moving the file from one table to another because of which the same is delayed. If the delay occurred due to departmental proceedings that keeping in view of the compendious of decision in which prima facie several types of errors are noticeable. The learned counsel forcefully argued that the delay in filing of the Revision Petition is neither deliberate nor intentional, but because of the above-mentioned reasons and sought condoned of 384 days of delay.

3. As regards period of limitation for filing of a Revision Petition, Regulation 14 of the CP (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 inter alia stipulate that:—

“Subject to the provisions of sections 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 67 and 69, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:—

(i) Revision Petition shall be filed within ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order…”

4. Therefore, the present revision petition was to be filed within 90 days of the receipt of the order of the learned State Commission. From the perusal of records, it is clear that the impugned order was pronounced on 08.04.2022 and the order was received on 29.04.2022, the present revision was filed on 26.07.2023 and its admitted position that, there has been a delay of 384 days in filing of the present Revision Petition.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361”, has observed 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.”

6. The test which is to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108” has held:—

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay i