NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/64/2026 (Against the Order dated 29th January 2025 in Appeal No. SC/9/A/1279/2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/436/2026 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/434/2026 (STAY)

NC/IA/435/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAGAR PANCHAYAT PRESENT ADDRESS - DIBIYAPUR PARGANA Y ZILAAURAIYA U.PAURAIYA,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus MAHESH CHANDRA PANDEY S/o. Sh. Krishna Kant PRESENT ADDRESS - BABU DAYARAM NAGAR DIBIYAPURPARGANA V , AURAIYA,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. ROHINI KUMAR, ADVOCATE DATED: 06/03/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the revisionist/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1279 of 2024, arising out of the order dated 03.03.2023, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Auraiya (for short the ‘District Forum’) in complaint case no.

134 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on delay condonation application being IA/435/2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Government authority so the time was consumed in formalities and holding Board meetings.

4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the record.

5. The only reason shown for said delay is that the petitioner is a Government authority. This ground for condonation of delay of 256 days is not sufficient enough.

6. There is a reported delay of 256 days and the same has not been explained sufficiently giving cogent reasons.

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

“261. …….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 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.”

8. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011)

decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

“12. It is not in dispute that the person (s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concessio