Change in management does not condone substantial delay in filing appeals; society's obligation continuous.

JUDGMENT

Both these writ petitions were submitted by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by which the appeals submitted by the petitioner were rejected on the reason that, the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filing appeal. In both these writ petitions, the 1^st respondent has approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, by filing complaints in the year 2015, being aggrieved by the failure on the part of the petitioner in returning the fixed deposits made by them. In both cases, the District Commission passed orders, copies of which are produced as Exts.P3 in both the writ petitions, by which, the amounts deposited by them were directed to be returned along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and a further amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded as cost and compensation.

2. The petitioner submitted appeals against Ext.P3 order before the State Commission, along with an application to condone the delay of 825 days. The reason stated by the petitioner for condoning the delay was that, the petitioner was under the management of Administrator from 10.12.2014 to 07.05.2022. The present managing committee took charge only on 08.05.2022 and the present managing committee was not aware of the said proceedings. It was also averred that the counsel to whom the matter was entrusted with, also did not inform the present management committee or the Secretary about the said matter. According to them, only when the notice was received as part of the execution proceeding, the present management came to know about the same. However, the State Commission found that the reason furnished by the petitioner was not satisfactory and hence the appeals were rejected. This writ petition is filed challenging the same. 3. After hearing hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, I find that the order passed by the State Commission rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for condoning the delay does not warrant any interference. The delay in submitting the appeal is very huge and it extends up to 825 days. The reason stated by the petitioner is that, the management was under an administrator during the period from 10.12.2014 to 07.05.2022. This fact cannot be a reason to condone the delay, in view of the fact that those who were in the management of the petitioner Society were under an obligation to take the necessary steps to challenge the order, if the Society was aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission. The change in the management and the consequence of the same, will not alter the nature of responsibility of the Society as a whole, and therefore, the said fact is not relevant at all when it comes to the question of condonation of delay. Moreover, the lapses on the part of the management of the Society cannot be a reason to deny the benefits of the complainants, in whose favour orders have been passed.

4. Thus, the view adopted by the State Commission while rejecting the applications submitted by the petitioner for condoning the delay, is a probable view. The challenge against the said orders is made by invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the scope of the same in respect of an order passed by the State Commission is very limited. Only in cases where, the order is perverse or per se illegal, an interference could be made. Even in cases where, another view is possible, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the finding entered into by the State Commission and substitute the same with the view of this court.

In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons to entertain these writ petitions and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.