IN THE N A T IO N A L C O N S U M E R D IS P U T E S R E D R E S S A L C O M M IS S IO N N E W D E L H I NMLKJIHGFEDCBA (T h ro u g h H y b rid H e a rin g )

R E V IS IO N P E T IT IO N N O .1 4 6 8 O F 2 0 2 5 (Against the Order dated 02.08,2024 in First Appeal No.260/2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P.)

with NC/IA/13923/2025, NC/IA/13924/2025, NC/IA/13925/2025, NC/IA/13926/2025, NC/IA/1361/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY, FOR GRANT OF STAY, EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY, SUMMON IN THE RECORD, CONDONATION QF DELAY COMPLIANCE OF ORDER)

M.P. Housing Infrastructure and Development Board .... Petitioner(s)

Versus Ram Prakash Dubey & Anr. Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

H O N ’B L E M R S . J U S T IC E S A R O J Y A D A V , P R E S ID IN G M E M B E R For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaantanu Devansh, Advocate Ms, Sakshi Dara, Advocate Dated : 1 3 .0 2 .2 0 2 6

O R D E R (O R A L )

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section

58(1 )(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved of the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned M P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.260/2023.

This Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 361 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the Application for condonation of delay being IA/1361/2026.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is a government body. Hence, the time was consumed in seeking / approvals at different levels and in completing the formalities as per procedure. The delay is bonafide, hence, the delay should be condoned.

Learned Counsel relied upon the following case-laws:

1. Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh— SLP (Civil)

No.6145 of 2024 decided on 21.03.2025.

2. Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 317

3. The State of W est Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality & Ors. (1972) 1 SCC 366

4. Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through legal representatives &

Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 531

5. Central Bank Of India Vs. Jagbir Singh— Civil Appeal No.3645/2015 decided on 16,04.2015 Considered the Submissions made and perused the cited case-

laws.

Perusal of the impugned Order shows that even the Appeal, which has been dismissed through the impugned Order, was filed with an admitted delay of 11 months and 26 days. The concerned State Commission found that the delay was not well explained. The impugned Order was passed by the District Commission on 05.01.2021 against which the Appeal was filed on 27,02.2023. Even after giving relaxation as per the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCBA there is a delay of almost S u o M o to W rit P e titio n (C iv il) N o . 0 3 /2 0 2 0 , one year. Hence, the concerned State Commission declined to admit the Appeal as time-barred.

In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs.

Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019)

NMLKJIHGFEDCBA '1.

decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“ ...Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.”

T